So, I think I’m ready to re-enter the blogosphere…but not here. I’ve finally gotten bored with “If God is Love.” I’m ready for a new blog. I can’t stay in the same place for too long. I’m ready to move on.

In a time of devastating war there was a woman whose husband was killed on the field of battle. Upon hearing the news, the woman dropped to her knees and cried out to the heavens, “I curse you God for taking away my husband and for stealing the father of my children!” At that moment she collapsed to the ground, her body limp and seemingly lifeless. Unresponsive, she was carried to her bed where she lay for two days, not saying another word.

On the morning of the third day, the local priest came and stood at the woman’s bedside. Though silent and without movement, the woman’s eyes were open, staring blankly at the wall across from her bed. For a long time the priest simply stood beside her with his head bowed and eyes closed, appearing to be in prayer. While the priest was still praying, slowly the face of the woman seemed to regain life. Seeing the priest beside her, she opened her mouth, and finding her voice said, “Are you the man who came to me in my dream?” Slightly startled, the priest said, “I have only been standing here, praying for you and your family. Tell me about your dream.” Still regaining her consciousness, the woman described her dream to the priest.

“I dreamed I was walking in a beautiful and lush garden. I walked for many hours as the garden continued to expand before me, appearing to be without boundary. For a long time I saw a man in the distance and then suddenly he was right before me. He did not respond to my words and did not appear to be aware of my presence. All the while, he was speaking loudly, almost shouting, in a beautiful language I could not understand.”

Contemplating the woman’s dream, the priest said, “Perhaps our Lord has appeared to you in your grief, seeking to give you comfort and rest.” With anger in her voice, the woman responded, “I have renounced my God and I refuse his comfort. Please leave me alone in my grief.” With sadness, the priest bowed his head and left the room. But after closing the door behind him, he stopped and quietly prayed, “O God of our fathers, I pray for this dear woman who has experienced such a tremendous loss. I pray for her and her children who have lost a husband and a father so prematurely. I pray you would help her to find her faith. Blessed Father hear my prayer.”

In a time of devastating war there was a woman whose husband was killed on the field of battle. In accordance with her religious customs, and during the specified time of mourning, she went to see the high priest in the holy city. Arriving at the temple, the woman was brought before the priest. As she bowed before the holy man, she said, “Wise priest, I come before you in mourning but I have confidence in the scriptures, which assure me that my husband is now with our ancestors in paradise. Though I am devastated by this loss, I am filled with faith in our God. He sustains me and lifts me up in the midst of my grief. Please bless me and pray that I might be rescued from any doubt and that I might not question God’s reasons for taking my husband from my children and me.”

Filled with sorrow for the woman’s loss, the priest placed his hand on the woman’s head and quietly mouthed an ancient blessing. He then prayed for her, saying, “O God of our fathers, I pray for this dear woman who has experienced such a tremendous loss. I pray for her and her children who have lost a husband and a father so prematurely. I also pray you would rescue her from her great faith. Blessed Father hear our prayer.”

Opening her eyes the woman stood silently before the priest. After a few moments she opened her mouth and said, “I do not understand your prayer, wise priest. My longing is for an even greater faith. Why did you pray for me to be rescued from my faith?”

With much compassion, the priest looked into the woman’s eyes and responded, “Dear child, I also long for you to have an even greater faith than you currently possess. That is the reason for my prayer. For it is only when we lose our faith that we can truly gain it.

How do I even begin to reflect on last week’s Minnekon experience? There was just so much. It was wonderful. I loved every minute – hearing Pete talk at least five different times in four days, learning so much from Sarah, Kellie and Jonny, participating in the workshops, eating meals and having great conversations with new friends, and having the opportunity to think about, reflect on, and even put into practice ideas I find very provocative and hopeful. This is certainly an experience I will be processing for many weeks. Here are a few provisional thoughts to give you an idea of the places my mind has been wandering because of the overall experience:

Pete Rollins is for real. Even after reading both of his books, there was still a part of me that wondered if perhaps Pete was just playing around with words and ideas. I didn’t think he was a crypto-evangelist, but you can never quite be sure… But now I’m completely confident that he’s for real. And more than that, he cares about helping others do the kind of thing he is doing. He thinks it is important. So do I.

Ikon is not a church. And it’s not necessarily Christian. It’s certainly influenced by, and perhaps even rooted in, the Christian tradition and the tradition of the Church, but ultimately it’s post-Christian, and this makes it different than much of the emerging church. Not in a better or worse way – it’s just different. I think Ikon, and the theology behind Ikon, is about creating open spaces – empty spaces – for God to give God (the transcendent, the wholly other, etc.). These spaces might be in church settings, they might not be. Whether or not it’s church is just irrelevant. I really appreciate this. I want to be a part of creating these kinds of spaces.

On a related note, I see the theology behind Ikon impacting various settings within the church. However, to really take the theology seriously, I don’t think it can fully work in the church. But that’s ok. I don’t think it’s an either/or. I think letting this theology loose in church is good. And letting it loose outside the church is good too. But there is still a difference. At Ikon all questions are open. In the church, it is always foundational that what is happening is Christian and church. At Ikon even these questions are open. Again, I see a place for both. It’s not an either/or.

Continuing this same idea, I think all of this is further evidence of the increasing diversity of Christian/religious/spiritual experiences that are available for people. Church, Christianity, spirituality, and religion are no longer relegated to a church building, or even to particular faith traditions. Religious and spiritual questions and experiences are everywhere. People are going to pick and choose from a variety of options and create their own church/religious life. There is a lot more that can be said about this. I know many people see this as a problem. I see it as a really good and hopeful shift in our culture. Again, I think the question is how we can create spaces (both inside and outside the church) for God to give God (and I say that in the broadest sense possible).

I am still considering how the ideas in Pete’s books translate into everyday life. Or as Tony Jones asked in his dialogue with Pete, “How does this work for a devotional life?” This is a valid question. Personally, I don’t know if Pete has a good answer to this question right now. But I think that is understandable. I think it is somewhat uncharted territory. I think some people are living this kind of life but we may not yet identify it as such (I think of Gordon Atkinson/Real Live Preacher). I am very interested in considering these ideas and perhaps doing some writing along these lines. A provisional title for the topic – “Living Life With/out God.” This is very interesting to me.

Well, thanks for following along with me through the Minnekon experience. I hope these posts have been beneficial. I have definitely had a lot more traffic on my blog over the past week, so this seems to be something people are interested in.

What about those who have pursued all these things only to find something like a dead end?

Is this the end of the road?

Or is it the beginning?

There are those who speak of a long forgotten saying of Jesus. Perhaps it might help us. The story reads as follows:

One day when Jesus was setting out on another journey, one of his disciples, one who had been following him for some time, came up behind him and asked, “Teacher, I have been following you for many months, but I must ask you, how do I find the way?” Jesus turned to him and said, “Have you not heard me say, ‘Follow me, for I am the way, the truth and the life?'” Having heard this a number of times, the disciple replied, “Yes, Lord, I believe you are the way. I have followed you on many journeys. I have listened to your every word, but I still seek to find the way. Tell me what to do and I will do it – anything you ask. I would even sell all my possessions. Just tell me the way.” Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said, “You lack one thing, go away from here, and follow me.” Disheartened by the saying, the disciple was sorrowful, for he did not want to leave Jesus’ presence.

Tonight we have left the home of our identities at the door. No matter where we find ourselves, no matter what baggage we have collected, we acknowledge the way we look for must be away from here. If we do not know where to go, if we do not know what to do, we must do it. We must leave – pursuing the destination that can only be found in the journey. And perhaps in the very act of leaving we will find a.way from here.

On Saturday night I was part of the culmination of the Minnekon experience – an Ikon-like event. If you’ve never read How (Not) to Speak of God, then you might not have a feeling for what an Ikon event is like. First off, I recommend reading the book (the second half of the book describes ten different Ikon events, and is worth the price of the book all by itself), but basically Ikon events are experiential, experimental, creative, provocative, and theatrical attempts to knock people off their normal course – if even for just a moment. Peter Rollins describes these events as theodrama and transformance art. Ultimately, these events are an attempt to create a space where God can give God. As I mentioned in a previous post, Ikon events have seven elements: liturgy (theological words), ritual (interactive communal response), visuals, music, personal reflections, stories (parables, poetry, etc.), and a gift for everyone to take away from the experience. On Friday night (and into Saturday) we worked hard to prepare for the Minnekon event. I was part of the liturgy group and my primary task was to create an introduction for the event. I’ll share that later (here).

The theme of the event was “(finding) a.way (from here).” The entire experience was an attempt to play with the at times contradictory yet interactive ideas of finding a way and going away from here. The theme was actually very relevant for where I am in my life right now – but I’ll save that topic for my Minnekon reflections post…

The event started out with everyone receiving a name tag before entering. Each person was then told to write on the name tag some important elements of their own identity. The name tag was then taken away and replaced with a blank name tag that everyone put on as they went into the event. As people entered, someone was playing the song “Amazing Grace,” except the words were changed to “I once was found, but now I’m lost. Could see but now I’m blind.” After everyone had found their way into the room I went up to the mic and read my introduction. There was a story about being lost and looking for directions, there was an original song based on the theme, a few personal reflections/stories/poetry readings, a liturgy with a communal response, and Pete shared his parable about going away from here (the origin of the theme “a.way”). The ritual involved everyone coming to the center and using their blank name tag to write a burden they were carrying. Everyone put the tags into a basket and later everyone took someone else’s tag and put it on. Throughout this entire time there was background music/ambient beats and also video projected onto two screens in the room. There were also people shining flashlights around the room at different points during the event. A couple cool visuals involved doing live searches on Google Maps and Google Earth that were displayed on the screens. These searches involved words like “lost,” “hope,” “away,” etc. This was really very cool…but the whole thing is hard to describe. The intent is for the event to be very experiential so words certainly do not do it justice. But hopefully this gives you a little feel for it all. As everyone left they were given a few “gifts” – a small part of a map, a bus ticket stamped with “changes required,” and their original name tag which had been stained in tea.

So what does all this mean?

Some people did leave wondering this very question. But that is part of the whole idea behind theodrama/transformance art. The “meaning” is not what’s so important, or at least having one specific Meaning is not important. Hopefully the event as a whole encouraged an experience that shook people slightly off course and perhaps, just perhaps, God was able to give God in some way. Considering the short amount of time we spent planning the event, I thought it went really well and had some great content. Everyone seemed happy with it. One of the Ikon folks I talked to afterwards said it was remarkably similar in tone to a regular Ikon event (not that copying Ikon is the point). Overall it was a great experience. I am very intrigued by the creation of these kinds of spaces and I hope I can do something like this again in the future.

[My overall reflections on the week are still to come. I’ll also post the introduction I wrote some time later today (here).]

Minnekon is all over. The service tonight, “a.way,” was great. I’ll definitely blog more about that in the next couple days. However, right now it’s late and I’m going to bed. Tomorrow we travel back to Waco (or is it today?).

Embrace the world and all its joy and suffering – that is where God is (from Bonhoeffer).

Revelation as rupture

No distinction between hearing and heeding.

Being the miraculous is more important than believing in the miraculous.

How does this work in the context of the church?

1 – Church should speak to our social self. Aligning our actions with our beliefs.

Doubt must be open rather than just allowing the people to let the pastor or institution believe on their behalf.

Church often speaks to how we should believe. Instead should talk to our social self that doesn’t believe these things. Pastors must show doubt and live fully in the world. They must break the spell.

2 – Church needs to bring people to maturity. Leaders must be ones who refuse leadership.

The last teaching of a great leader is that you must betray me.

Love is always in excess. Loving disciple always goes beyond the teacher. Church must encourage this kind of betrayal.

3 – Churche should be place of suspended space (epoche). Becoming nobody, nothing in that place. That’s the place God speaks. Enact the eschaton. God is always with those without identity. God is there when we divest ourselves. God speaks in the place of no place.

4 – Belonging before belief.

Jesus didn’t talk much about theology.

5 – Longing for the event of God.

After Pete’s final talk we did our serious work towards developing an Ikon-like service/theodrama/transformance art for Saturday night. The theme for the night is “a.way” or “(finding) a.way (from here).” The following are the elements of an Ikon event that we worked on developing for Saturday night:

Liturgy – theological words

Ritual – interactive communal response

Visuals

Music

Reflections – often personal

Stories – more theological content but through parables, poetry, etc.

Gift – something for each person to take away from the evening.

Well, that’s probably enough for now. I have to work on the introduction to the event (part of the liturgy). We’ll see how that goes…

[By the way, I plan on following up on all this with some general reflection on the events of the week]

Revelation is not about God whispering in our ear, but is about incomprehension, bedazzlement, and transformation.

Revelation more like enlightenment – changes how we see the world.

If revelation is a whisper in our ear, then knowledge and action can be separated. We can know the truth and not do the truth. Rollins says revelation doesn’t allow this. You are what you do. You are your social self.

Jesus was radical because he seemed to forgive people without condition. Perhaps unconditional forgiveness helps bring forth repentance. You see this in the prodigal story.

Tony Jones and Peter Rollins had some dialogue after Pete’s talk. Tony asked about how all of this works in real life. What does it mean for a devotional life with God? Would these things have been harder to come to in American life? Lots of discussion followed around these questions.

After the talks, Sarah, Jonny, Kellie and Pete presented more “lessons in evandalism.” This part of the night was primarily centered on Jonny leading us through some artistic exercises (Im not exactly sure what to call it…but it was good stuff). Lots of interesting stuff. Good group discussion and work. I have really enjoyed the contributions from the non-Pete Ikon folks. These are very bright, creative, and thoughtful people. They have much to offer and I have much to learn. Good thing we have a couple more days…

We just finished up a conversation with Peter Rollins and the Ikon folks with the Emergent cohort here in Minneapolis – the Twin Cities Emergent Cohort. Lots of good conversation. Here are a few highlights:

Rollins (when starting Ikon and after leaving his church): “I have no vision at all. I only know what I don’t want it to be.”

I’m a big advocate of not knowing what to do and doing it.

A big thing for me is not allowing ourselves to connect our ideas with God.

Instead of fulfilling your dreams, finding new ones.

Atheism for Lent – something Ikon puts together each year for Lent. They read the great atheist critiques of Christianity – not to critique them but to allow them to critique us.

Priestly role is to refuse the priesthood – helps usher in priesthood of all believers.

Pete’s role is to make sure no one colonizes these spaces.

Ikon is like a donut with a hole in the middle. Regular church is jam filled donut. No center, everyone on periphery.

At Ikon – only person who cares about you is the person next to you.

Create a void and allow God to give God.

Creating Ikon causes an orbit to occur. Interesting people are attracted to it. Pre-Ikon and Post-Ikon times are most important.

Leader is very important – to refuse leadership. Create and let it die.

Dreaming new dreams can’t have a plan – it’s uncharted, new wineskin. Can’t have a plan for starting a new community. The only thing you know is you must go somewhere that is not here. “Where are you going?” “I am going away from here.”

Create an atmosphere where people are ruptured – this is transformance art.

Repetition of difference – repeat things but differently.

Liberal and conservative – two different ways of trying to say the right answer. Alternative is to say views aren’t God’s views

Today was the first official day for the Minnekon conference/workshop in Minneapolis, featuring Peter Rollins and his friends from Ikon. The schedule is perfect. We start each day with a talk from Pete at 4:00 (which means we get to sleep in and spend some time around town during the morning and early afternoon. Today Brooke and I went to the Minneapolis Institute of Art, which was wonderful). Pete has three talks planned. Today was about God, tomorrow is about Revelation and Friday is about Church. After the session we all ate dinner together which gives a good amount of time to hang out and chat with Pete, the Ikon folks, and other people attending the conference/workshop. After dinner are the more practical workshops led by all the Ikon crew. An excellent schedule. I couldn’t ask for anything more. Perfect.

So anyways, here are some highlights from today:

Rollins: “I agree with much of what I say, but not everything.”

Most churches follow the time line of “believe, behave, belong.” This should be turned around. Belonging to the community should be the first step, which may lead to a change of behavior, and perhaps a change in beliefs.

We are an object before God. We don’t name God, God names us. God is the absolute subject.

Not everything that exists can be made into an object (example: life).

Is Rollins’ view a fancy kind of agnosticism? Not exactly. Rather, whereas agnosticism is a middle ground between atheism and theism, approaching God in the way Rollins proposes is more like holding both extremes at the same time – and maybe being ripped apart as we are stretched by holding both ends of the spectrum.

Rollins: “I’m not going to let the word ‘God’ get in the way.” But the word God does have value. But even this important word should not get in the way of transformation.

Rollins: “Sharing rituals we have created is very important to me.” Belonging is very important.

At Ikon they have started an “Omega Course” (as opposed to the Alpha Course), which is designed to help people “exit Christianity in 12 weeks.”

Rollins: “My job at Ikon is to refuse leadership.”

The members of Ikon are those who would be greatly missed if they left. The word member comes from the idea of a body part. In this way, a member is someone who would be greatly missed, in the same way that a finger would be greatly missed as part of the hand.

The workshop part of today’s session was led by the Ikon crew – Pete, Sarah, Jonny, and Kellie. This part of the week’s activities is going by the name “Lessons in Evandalism” and will be an attempt to convey some of the things Ikon has learned along the way. These workshops will culminate in an Ikon sort of event on Saturday night.

Brooke and I are in Minneapolis for Minnekon, a conference/workshop of sorts with Peter Rollins and a few of his friends (Kellie, Sarah, and Jonny) from Ikon, a religious collective in Belfast, Ireland. The workshop, put together by Chris Enstad, will run Wednesday-Saturday. I hope to post a little each day – we’ll see how that goes…

Tonight the Ikon crew were guests at Theology on Tap – a monthly theology discussion group here in Minneapolis. Brooke and I joined about 25 people at Glueck Restaurant and Bar for some good discussion to get the week started. Pete mostly gave an introduction to Ikon and some of the main ideas he has written about in his books. Here are a few of the highlights for me:

Pete gave a good intro about how Ikon got started. It basically started with just a name and an idea to do something of a religious sort in a local bar. He asked the owner if they could use the place and he said yes. Then he had to figure out what in the world he was going to do. If I remember correctly, that was about 5-6 years ago.

Pete said there are no members of Ikon – no one wants to claim to be a member. Instead there are only non-members. He said they are developing an official course on how to become a non-member, leading to receiving a non-membership card (ha!).

I appreciated Kellie’s words about how sometimes the faith we grew up with must die and how there is a grieving process that goes along with that. That may not be exactly what she said, but it was something along those lines. I was struck by the idea of there being many people going through this grieving process and needing hospitable spaces to grieve and move on in their faith, or loss of faith.

I’m really excited that Pete came with three other people from Ikon (and a fourth is here who used to be part of Ikon). I can already see that this will add a lot to the experience. They are all very different and approach the ideas in Pete’s books from different angles.

So those are just a few things I recall off the top of my head. I’m going to try and keep notes the rest of the week and post some about the talks, workshops, etc.

“It has again brought home to me quite clearly how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved. That is true of the relationship between God and scientific knowledge, but it is also true of the wider human problems of death, suffering, and guilt. It is now possible to find, even for these questions, human answers that take no account whatever of God. In point of fact, people deal with these questions without God (it has always been so), and it is simply not true to say that only Christianity has the answers to them. As to the idea of ‘solving’ problems, it may be that the Christian answers are just as unconvincing – or convincing – as any others. Here again, God is no stop-gap; he must be recognized as the centre of life, not when we are at the end of our resources; it is his will to be recognized in life, and not only when death comes; in health and vigour, and not only in suffering; in our activities, and not only in sin. The ground for this lies in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. He is the centre of life, and he certainly didn’t ‘come’ to answer our unsolved problems. From the centre of life certain questions, and their answers, are seen to be wholly irrelevant (I’m thinking of the judgment pronounced on Job’s friends). In Christ there are not ‘Christian problems’. – Enough of this; I’ve just been disturbed again.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer – Letters and Papers from Prison

________________

(I have compiled a comprehensive collection of excerpts from Letters and Papers from Prison that are related to Bonhoeffer’s concepts of “religionless Christianity,” “Christianity in a world come of age,” and other related matters. View the PDF document.)

Do you believe in parallel universes? Daniel Radosh found one. And if you’re reading this, you might very well be living in one.

Radosh is a secular Jew from New York who explores the world of Christian pop culture in his recent book Rapture Ready! Adventures in the Parallel Universe of Christian Pop Culture. With a combination of thoughtful critique, appreciation, good humor and above all graciousness, Radosh chronicles his year-long experience exploring the Evangelical subculture in America. A true outsider, Radosh immerses himself in the good, the bad, and the ugly of this sometimes bizarre world. Among other things, Radosh describes his encounters with “Jesus junk,” the Holy Land Experience, Christian romance novels, Bibleman, Stephen Baldwin, the Cornerstone music festival, Ultimate Christian Wrestling, Christian sex advice, creation museums, and even a Hell House. Seeking to understand this vast culture, Radosh does a fine job chronicling his experiences and offering some much needed outsider insight. I think this book is a must-read for Christians and non-Christians alike. Christians should read it for exposure to an outsider’s perspective on our strange world, and non-Christians should read it to better understand the growing diversity of the Evangelical movement. Everyone can read it for an entertaining and sometimes laugh-out-loud funny look at a much talked about but little understood element of American culture.

When I started reading Rapture Ready! I was hoping for a funny and entertaining read, and in that regard I was not disappointed. However, I wasn’t expecting such an insightful perspective, and I wouldn’t have guessed I would finish the book feeling challenged to live differently. Now don’t get me wrong, you probably shouldn’t read this book looking for a life changing experience. Read it to be entertained. But don’t be surprised if it challenges you to think seriously about your relationship to Evangelical culture (whether you are a Christian or not).

Radosh concludes his book with a call for greater interaction between the moderate and progressive elements of Evangelicalism and Radosh’s own secular culture. He believes an increasing interaction between these oftentimes separate universes will prove helpful for everyone. I agree. Radosh finds popular culture to be a good starting place for this interaction, but I don’t think he sees this as the only place for healthy communication. Personally, I finished Radosh’s book with two insights. First, I want to intentionally further separate myself from much of the Christian subculture I’m still part of. This separation has been happening fairly naturally over the past ten years but I think it’s time to cut the cord. I’m done with it. (Radosh is not necessarily calling for this kind of reaction) Second, I am more convinced than ever that this interaction between Christians and non-Christians should occur within environments open to the experience of God, the transcendent, and/or religious experience. In fact, I am most interested in the dissolution of this Christian/non-Christian divide. And I increasingly want to play a part in the creation of spaces where this very thing can happen.

In the final pages of his book, Radosh makes a statement I think Christians are in much need of hearing. After discussing the Christian notion of “lifestyle evangelism” Radosh takes it a step further and declares the following:

“Personally, I’m not sure how successful [lifestyle evangelism] really is in leading people to Christ, but I can attest that it’s a very successful method for generating positive feelings about Christians. The evangelicals I’ve felt the most fond of, the most comfortable around, and the most commonality with – regardless of political, social, or philosophical differences – were the ones who never tried to sell me on Jesus yet always seemed to be trying to live the life Jesus desired of them. The paradox of lifestyle evangelism is that while it might sound like a Christian’s loving, friendly actions are all driven by an ulterior motive, it only really clicks when they’re able to let go of that motive. The people who made the best case for Christianity were the ones who were genuinely unconcerned with whether I ever decided to become a Christian or not.”

I think this statement, and Radosh’s book as a whole, is something Christians need to hear. And hopefully we will take it to heart.

Perhaps all of you are well aware of the Woot “Bag O’ Crap.” I only came across it for the first time last week. In case you haven’t heard of it, here’s the main idea. Basically, an online store called Woot occasionally digs around their warehouse and gets rid of random items of mostly insignificant value. They put the items in the “Bag O’ Crap” and sell them for one dollar plus shipping. Sounds pretty ridiculous, right? Well, it certainly is ridiculous. But that doesn’t keep it from also being ridiculously popular. Apparently these “Bags O’ Crap” cause quite a frenzy and sell out in seconds. Yes, there are people who end up receiving “treasures” worth a hundred dollars or more, but most of the time the items are pretty much worthless. Woot even goes out of their way to make it clear that the great majority of people will receive exactly what they pay for – a “Bag O’ Crap.”

So why in the world am I blogging about this? Because I can’t imagine a better example of the troubling impact of consumerism on our culture. Not only do we spend unholy amounts of money to celebrate Christmas. Not only do we accumulate alarming amounts of debt. No, we also choose to spend money on a “Bag O’ Crap” at the mere chance that we may end up receiving something worth more money than we paid – even though that something is probably not something we need, or even necessarily want.

All of this makes me very convinced that we need people like Reverend Billy to raise the alarm and attempt to save us from the Shopacolypse.

In case you missed my previous posts about Reverend Billy (1 and 2), Wikipedia describes him this way:

“Reverend Billy and his Church of Stop Shopping is an activist performance group based in New York City, led by Bill Talen. Using the form of a revival meeting, on sidewalks and in chain stores, Reverend Billy and his gospel choir exhort consumers to abandon the products of large corporations and mass media; the group also preaches a broader message of economic justice, environmental protection, and anti-militarism…”

The reason I am bringing up Reverend Billy again is that I finally got a chance to watch What Would Jesus Buy? – a documentary that follows the good reverend and his rip-roarin’ Church of Stop Shopping on a Christmastime cross country tour to save America from the impending Shopacolypse. As many of you know, I was really excited to see this documentary, but when I got the movie from Netflix I was a little skeptical because Netflix viewers have given the movie a pathetic cumulative rating of 2.5 stars out of 5. But I now know we cannot give any weight to the cumulative Neflix community, because What Would Jesus Buy? is fantastic. Bump it to the top of your queue right now. Go. Now. It’s awesome. Reverend Billy is my hero.

I have to agree with Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann who compares Reverend Billy to the “guerilla theater” of Jesus and the prophets. Reverend Billy might not be a Christian, but he is certainly a prophet. He may use humor, but he is very serious about his message (he has even been arrested multiple times).

Reverend Billy is doing good work. We should all heed his call to STOP SHOPPING!

Because my blog is one of the top blogs in the universe, and because I am fabulously famous (which was the goal in starting a blog in the first place), I’ve started to receive free books as part of The Ooze Select Blogger Network. Yes, that’s right, I’m “select,” and you probably aren’t. Sorry. And don’t even think about being select until you start having at least five or six different people coming to your blog. And I mean every day.

[As an aside, I recently watched What Would Jesus Buy? and when Reverend Billy prays or conducts credit card exorcisms (yes, you read that right) he calls God the “fabulous creator” – or something like that. I like the word fabulous. Rolls off the tongue. I’m a fabulous blogger. Sounds good. Maybe it should be The Ooze Fabulous Blogger Network…I’ll see what I can do about that…]

So anyways, I’ve started receiving books in the mail with the expectation that I will read them and write about them on my blog. This is great news for you! Not only will you be reading a blog that’s part of a select fabulous blogger network, you will also be receiving free advice from me about books you should or should not be reading! Free advice from a fabulous blogger! You are very lucky people.

Alrighty, let’s get down to business. Here are my first reviews.

Hokey Pokey, by Mathew Paul Turner
Yep, the first book is called Hokey Pokey. It’s written by a former editor of CCM magazine and the book is about issues related to vocation and calling. These are issues I think about a lot. I’m not sure, but perhaps because I think about these issues a lot, this book didn’t do it for me. Turner is a good writer and has some good things to say, but no big revelations. And let me tell you, I need big revelations – especially when it comes to this topic. But if you are interested in a book to get you started thinking about vocation and calling, this wouldn’t be a bad place to start.

Feel, by Mathew Elliot
I only made it through half of Feel, but I actually did like what Eliot is saying. He’s basically trying to debunk the myth that feelings are always to be discounted. He is particularly interested in showing that the Bible does not support this way of thinking. I agree. However, I thought the book was repeating the same thing over and over. After reading half the book I just had a feeling the second half was going to be the same as the first. I decided to trust my feelings and skip the second half. But if this stuff interests you, I do recommend the book (or at least the first half of it).

We the Purple, by Marcia Ford
Marcia Ford believes we’re in the midst of a growing revolution of sorts – the growth in the number and influence of independent voters. Ford is an independent voter and is quite proud of it. And very excited. But I’m not as excited. I have nothing to say about this book. I only read a couple chapters. I wasn’t interested. Maybe I’ll pick it up again later. If you want to read a thoughtful review from someone who actually did read the book, check out Makeesha Fisher’s review of the book (by the way, I agree that it’s probably a good idea to read a book before reviewing it. I’ll try to follow that rule.)

Songs for a Revolution of Hope, Volume 1
This is not a book, so I did not read it. But since it’s a cd, I did listen to it. Songs for a Revolution of Hope is a collaboration between Brian McLaren and Tracy Howe of the Restoration Project. It’s a cd that tries real hard to produce a different kind of worship music for the church. As you know, typical worship music is something I definitely have a problem with, so I really do appreciate what this project is trying to do. However, I just couldn’t get into it. I like the lyrics to the songs (for the most part). I like the sounds. But I just have this block against worship music. Sorry. I love McLaren and I love what he’s trying to do here. Please go and check out this cd. Or at least check out the lyrics. It really does represent a good change in direction for worship music. I just have a problem.

Well, that’s it folks. I’m sorry there are no strong recommendations here. I’m just now starting to read the next batch of books provided by the Ooze Fabulous Blogger Network. I am hopeful there will be some good ones. Right now I’m reading The New Conspirators by Tom Sine and Rapture Ready by Daniel Radosh. I’m particularly excited about Rapture Ready.

The third and final section of The Fidelity of Betrayalis focused on “The Event of God.” This portion of the book, as with the other sections, is very difficult to discuss in one blog entry. I could write many entries about Rollins’ notion that doubting God is not the same as doubting the miracle of faith – the intervention of God. I could also write many pages about Rollins’ call for communities where belonging comes before believing. And I think I could start a whole new blog to work through the ideas of the last chapter, where Rollins begins to discuss what it might look like to forge faith collectives where “transformance art” and “theodrama” provide space for God to give God. But I simply can’t address all of it. So instead I will leave you with a few of my final thoughts about fidelity, betrayal, and moving towards a church beyond belief.

First of all, I want to make it very clear that Rollins is not simply playing games with this call to betrayal. “The Fidelity of Betrayal” is not just a clever title to help generate interest in the book. Rollins is calling for us to betray Christianity. To betray the Bible, God, and the Church. But we must remember, Rollins is calling us to a faithful betrayal. Rollins believes our ideas about God and the Bible, which take form in the Church and Christianity, point to a transforming event, a miracle that we cannot deny. And this miracle is what provokes our faith and our attempts to explain our faith. But these explanations and beliefs always fall short of expressing the miracle that has transformed us from the inside out. The miracle is unexplainable but undeniable. So we must always betray the solidification of the radical miracle of faith into mere beliefs. This does not mean we cannot hold beliefs, but we must hold them with great humility, always being willing to betray these beliefs – to rethink and reformulate these beliefs. And we must always acknowledge that these beliefs cannot hold the transforming event they attempt to describe.

I sincerely appreciate Rollins’ call for faithful betrayal, but more than anything I am intrigued by Rollins’ call for a church beyond belief. Again, this is not merely clever wording. Rollins is challenging us to move beyond churches centered on commonly held beliefs. Again, let me make it clear, beliefs are not bad. But we must move beyond beliefs as the central focus. Instead, we must acknowledge the centrality of the life transforming miracle these beliefs attempt to describe. A miracle that is truly beyond belief. A miracle that is beyond the system of Christianity. So what might a church beyond belief look like? This is what interests me more than anything else. With Rollins, I am interested in the development of this type of church. In the past I have called it “a church that’s not a church.” (also see this post, which describes a significant shift in my thinking about church). Rollins plays with the terms “religious collective,” “transformance art,” and “theodrama” as he tries to describe such a group.

In conclusion, I leave you with some of Rollins’ thoughts about the formation and nature of these experimental collectives:

“Here I am referring to the formation of passionate, provocative gatherings, operating on the fringes of religious life, that offer anarchic experiments in theodrama that re-imagine the distinction between Christian and non-Christian, priest and prophet, doubt and certainty, the sacred and secular – gatherings that employ a rich cocktail of music, poetry, prose, imagery, soundscapes, theatre, ritual, and reflection: gatherings that provide a place that is open to all, is colonized by none, and that celebrates diversity.

“Such an immersive, theodramatic space would aim to affirm the need for (1) collective reflection; (2) a space where individuals can lay aside political, religious, and social identities; and finally (3) offer creative, ritualistic acts that invite, affirm, recall, and relate the event housed within the religion without religion that is Christianity.”

And finally:

“These temporary spaces will likely appear as much in art galleries, on street corners, in bars and basements, as they will in churches and cathedrals…[E]verything, absolutely everything, will be designed to invite, encourage, solicit, seek out, recall, remember, reach out to, bow down before, and cry out to that unspeakable miracle that dwells, quite literally, beyond belief.”

I realize this is all pretty wild and crazy. Would something like this even be a church? Would it be Christian? Personally, I think those are the wrong questions. I don’t care if it’s really a church or truly Christian. I think it might be something “other.”

What do you think? I’d really love to hear your thoughts about a church beyond belief.

“Our church, which has been fighting in these years only for its self-preservation, as though that were an end in itself, is incapable of taking the word of reconciliation and redemption to mankind and the world. Our earlier words are therefore bound to lose their force and cease, and our being Christians today will be limited to two things; prayer and righteous action among men. All Christian thinking, speaking, and organizing must be born anew out of this prayer and action…It is not for us to prophesy the day (although the day will come) when men will once more be called so to utter the word of God that the world will be changed and renewed by it. It will be a new language, perhaps quite non-religious, but liberating and redeeming – as was Jesus’ language; it will shock people and yet overcome them by its power; it will be the language of a new righteousness and truth, proclaiming God’s peace with men and the coming of his kingdom…Till then the Christian cause will be a silent and hidden affair, but there will be those who pray and do right and wait for God’s own time.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer – Letters and Papers from Prison

________________

(I have compiled a comprehensive collection of excerpts from Letters and Papers from Prison that are related to Bonhoeffer’s concepts of “religionless Christianity,” “Christianity in a world come of age,” and other related matters. View the PDF document.)

“You are Christian only so long as you constantly pose critical questions to the society you live in, so long as you emphasize the need of conversion both for yourself and for the world, so long as you in no way let yourself become established in the situation of the world, so long as you stay unsatisfied with the status quo and keep saying that a new world is yet to come. You are Christian only when you believe you have a role to play in the realization of the new kingdom, and when you urge everyone you meet with holy unrest to make haste so that the promise might soon be fulfilled. So long as you live as a Christian you keep looking for a new order, a new structure, a new life.”

In Part 2, as Rollins is betraying God, he turns to both Nietzsche and Bonhoeffer to assist him in this betrayal. As you know, Bonhoeffer has been much on my mind over the past nine months or so, so it was interesting to read Rollins’ thoughts about how Bonhoeffer connects to some of the ideas of faithful betrayal. This was particularly interesting in the context of Rollins’ thoughts on Nietzsche, who certainly influenced Bonhoeffer’s prison theology.

With Nietzsche’s assistance, Rollins addresses the issue of finding meaning in the world. If the core of Christianity is related to finding purpose in our lives and knowing that God loves us, then is Christianity merely a way of finding meaning in life? Is this the primary purpose of Christianity – to give us meaning and purpose within the context of our understanding of God and his purposes for the world?

I think this is largely true of Christianity – faith in God primarily as a way to find meaning.

The problem with this scenario is that these intellectual beliefs can become a hindrance to us truly living in the world. And these beliefs do not necessarily lead to a transformed life in this world. In fact, in many cases, finding peace and meaning in life can lead towards a rejection of this world and/or the creation of a false dichotomy between believing and living.

Rollins contests that Nietzsche’s protest was against any system (including atheism) that provided an all-encompassing way of finding meaning in life. Instead, Nietzsche hoped for a time when we would live with a full embrace of this world – embracing both its beauty and its terror. Rollins concludes that Nietzsche’s argument was not necessarily for or against the existence of God. Rather, his argument “claimed that the question of God’s existence was redundant.” Instead of asking the big question “why,” Rollins sees Nietzsche undermining the question entirely. Rollins asserts, “In response to the question ‘Why?’ [Nietzsche] replied, ‘Why ask why?’”

As I was reading this I couldn’t help but think about how related this is to Bonhoeffer’s prison theology. So I was quite excited when the very next page introduced Bonhoeffer’s “religionless Christianity” into the discussion! Connecting Nietzsche and Bonhoeffer, Rollins writes:

“[Bonhoeffer] wondered how to express the relevance of God (the God of faith) to those who do not feel the need for God (the Cartesian God that provides a matrix of meaning), while encouraging those who embrace such ideological religion to grow beyond it – helping those who have forsaken God (the Cartesian God) to find God (the God of faith) and those who have found God to forsake God.

“By exploring these issues he was responding to the idea that Christianity for a long time has been aimed at responding to a need in people (such as the feeling of guilt). As such it has been expressed as good news that can only be heard once a person has been brought low by the bad news…Bonhoeffer wondered whether it is possible to embrace God out of love and lightness of heart, out of a seduction that is caught up in the call of God rather than the need of God.”

How about that! Yes! The very questions I think are the most important regarding how to be a Christian/person of faith/lover of God in today’s world.

In Part 2 of Peter Rollins’ The Fidelity of Betrayal he takes up the topic of the being of God. Whereas in Part 1 Rollins’ argued that we must betray the Bible, in Part 2 he proposes we must also betray God. Rollins concludes this section with the following summary:

“…we must learn that in order to approach the God of faith and the truth affirmed by Christianity, we must betray the God we grasp – for the God who brings us into a new life is never the God we grasp but always in excess of that God. The God we affirm is then, at its best, inspired by the incoming of God and born there, but it is never to be confused with God.

“In the aftermath of God’s happening the true worshipper attempts to paint the most beautiful pictures imaginable to reflect that happening. It is this heartfelt endeavor to paint the most refined and beautiful conceptual images that speaks of God, not the actual descriptions we create.”

Rollins sees many problems with the common method for attempting to understand and speak of God. This method, which views God as an object of our contemplation, involves creating a distance between the believer and the source of the believer’s faith, so that we can dissect and explore the object (God), in much the same way as we might take apart and examine a computer. By attempting to examine God as a disinterested observer we have distanced ourselves from the most intimate and personal relationship in our lives. We have approached the question of God “as a problem to be pondered, dissected, and solved, rather than a mystery to inhabit and be transformed by.” Rollins believes this method hands over all authority to the experts and creates a false dichotomy between seeking truth and pursuing a life of devotion and service. Rollins is fearful of reducing Christianity to “a set of claims concerning ideas such as the world’s being created for a purpose, God’s loving us, and the existence of heaven.” By reducing Christianity to these claims we lose the transformational potential of the encounter with God. In addition, this view of Christianity can cause an unhealthy, and even dangerous, abandonment of this world, as we look solely to the next world.

Instead of viewing God as an object to be contemplated, “God is named as a verb,” and a happening being “made known only in action, only as blessing.” God is beyond understanding but is also intimately near to us. God is not an object but “a mystery to participate in,” giving new life. This new life “fundamentally changes how we interact with the things we see, touch, and experience.” God is not an object but is that which radically changes our own way of experiencing the world and everything in it. As with our rejection of the Bible, our rejection of God does not mean we can no longer speak of God, but it does mean we must always recognize that our words about God always come up short. God is always beyond our words and our conception of him. We must not attempt to distance ourselves from God in order to understand him. Instead we must welcome the incoming of God and embrace the mystery and transformative nature of this event we always fail to adequately describe.

(more to come on Part 2 – some thoughts about Nietzsche and Bonhoeffer)

“Hasn’t the individualistic question about personal salvation almost completely left us all? Aren’t we really under the impression that there are more important things than that question (perhaps not more important than the matter itself, but more important than the question!)? I know it sounds pretty monstrous to say that. But, fundamentally, isn’t this in fact biblical? Does the question about saving one’s soul appear in the Old Testament at all? Aren’t righteousness and the Kingdom of God on earth the focus of everything, and isn’t it true that Rom. 3.24ff. is not an individualistic doctrine of salvation, but the culmination of the view that God alone is righteous? It is not with the beyond that we are concerned, but with this world as created and preserved, subjected to laws, reconciled, and restored.What is above this world is, in the gospel, intended to exist for this world; I mean that, not in the anthropocentric sense of liberal, mystic pietistic, ethical theology, but in the biblical sense of creation and of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer – Letters and Papers from Prison

________________

(I have compiled a comprehensive collection of excerpts from Letters and Papers from Prison that are related to Bonhoeffer’s concepts of “religionless Christianity,” “Christianity in a world come of age,” and other related matters. View the PDF document.)

“It is all too common for Christians to attempt to do justice to the scriptural narrative by listening to it, learning from it, and attempting to extract a way of viewing the world from it. But the narrative itself is asking us to approach it in a much more radical way. It is inviting us to wrestle with it, disagree with it, contend with it, and contest it – not as an end in itself, but as a means of approaching its life-transforming truth, a truth that dwells within and yet beyond the words…And so, in our desire to remain absolutely, totally, and resolutely faithful to the Word of God, we come face to face with the idea that we must be prepared to wrestle with, question, and even betray the words.”

In Part 1, Rollins discusses the Bible. He begins by revealing the people of God in the Bible, Israel, as those who wrestle with God. In contrast to Islam, which means peace or submission, the people of Yahweh are called Israel, meaning those who wrestle with God. This notion of those who seek, follow, and love God being those who wrestle with God, is the central idea of the book. As he continues to discuss the Bible, Rollins proposes that in order to be faithful to the Bible, we must in fact “wrestle with it, disagree with it, contend with it…contest it…and even betray [it].” Rollins encourages us to refuse both of the common ways of dealing with the difficulties and ambiguities found in scripture – the two ways being 1) attempting to explain away the difficulties, and 2) accepting the difficulties but refusing to view the text as the divine Word. In place of these two options, Rollins proposes that we do not need to see the seeming contradictions in the Bible as a great dilemma. In fact, he believes the contradictions in the text are exactly what we would expect to find in a text inspired by God. Rollins sees the various stories of the Bible as attempts to put into words that which cannot be put into words, namely, the experience of God. So, in wrestling with the text we must realize that it is not merely an academic exercise in which we attempt to find the one true meaning of the text. Instead, to read the Bible in a truly transformative manner we must recognize that the text itself does not hold God. Rather, the text points to an encounter, an Event, that occurred in the lives of the authors. This encounter, this gaping hole in the text, is the Word of God, something behind and beyond the text itself. Rollins compares this to a crater, which is a sign of the occurrence of a volcanic eruption. The crater, or text, is not the Event itself, but rather points to the Event.

I believe Rollins’ view of the Bible has the potential to radically transform our reading of scripture. In fact, I believe this view saves the Bible and reinstates it as a text that can transform the reader. So much of modern Bible study is viewed as an academic exercise aimed at dissecting the text in order to find the original meaning and intention of the author. When taken to its logical conclusion, this method of reading robs the average reader and establishes the Biblical scholar as the only person capable of truly understanding the text. At best, with this most common method, we are all dependent on an expert who has been able to study the most recent Biblical scholarship. Rollins’ argument does not dispute the importance of Biblical scholarship, he simply desires to restore the rightful place of the Bible as a transformative text – a text that can radically change us as we struggle to encounter the true source, God, who is found beyond the words of the Bible.

The entire weekend retreat was centered on the Franciscan monastic tradition (check out the wonderful retreat booklet). Between Friday and Saturday we participated in four sessions dedicated to learning about St. Francis and developing a personal rule of life in the Franciscan tradition. The idea of developing a rule of life, and the related notion of taking on communal vows, has been very much on my mind over the past year. I hope this past weekend began the process of creating a written rule for my own life. In short, the focus of these sessions was on considering the values we each have and whether or not these values are evident in how we live our lives. By creating a rule of life we are encouraged to consider our values, the spiritual disciplines that would accompany these values, and then the rule that would express how these values and disciplines should be lived out in our daily lives. I think the process of working through each of these areas and creating the rule can be very valuable. I began this process this past weekend and hope to continue it over the following months.

A monastic and contemplative spirituality

In addition to learning about St. Francis and beginning the process of creating a rule of life, we also participated in communal prayer and worship by following the Franciscan schedule for praying the hours. We all joined together in services for vespers (evening prayer), compline (night prayer), matins (3am prayer – I wimped out and skipped this service), lauds (morning prayer), terce (third hour prayer), sext (sixth hour prayer), and none (ninth hour prayer). These short but very meaningful services consisted of liturgical prayers, scripture readings, music, chants, songs, periods of silence and contemplation, and group prayer. Paul Soupiset, liturgical arts director for the retreat, coordinated these beautiful services and helped give me a new (and ancient) vision for communal worship involving music. Many of you know my difficulties with modern day worship and praise services (documented here). Participating in these services left me spiritually refreshed and nourished. In addition to these beautiful services, I was also encouraged by the lovely natural setting for the retreat. Covenant Baptist Church is in the midst of a wonderful wooded area and has done an excellent job of preserving the natural beauty around the church buildings. Prayer paths and a labyrinth complement this setting and provide a rich environment for prayer, silence, and contemplation.

Community and conversation

Perhaps the most rewarding aspect of the retreat was the opportunity to meet and converse with other pilgrims from all over Texas (including a number from the Covenant community) and from locations across the United States – Seattle, Durham, and New York City. As with Gordon’s blog, this retreat drew a diversity of spiritual pilgrims from various backgrounds, religious traditions, and varying places within Christianity. I am so glad to have made many new friends and spiritual companions. I am also thankful for the wonderful hospitality of Covenant Baptist Church and the many people who cooked, taught, and served throughout the weekend. Brooke and I were also able to join the Covenant community for worship on Sunday morning.

“Labels are useful only in so far as they set expectations among those with whom we wish to have a dialogue. The label that best taps the knowledge resources of the audience is the one we try to choose.”

More and more, I desire to pursue experimental thinking with my blogging. I want to push out beyond the boundaries. I want to create rather than merely consume. I want to be more experimental in my blogging and thinking. It’s not always easy. I’m often very uncreative and quite stuck within my normal thinking patterns.

As I was considering experimental blogging, I recalled an excellent book called The Contrarian’s Guide to Leadership by USC president Steven Sample (an electrical engineer). One of my favorite concepts from the book is called “thinking free.” Sample explains “thinking free” in a 2007 speech:

“Thinking free…goes beyond ‘thinking outside the box’ or ‘brainstorming.’ Thinking free takes that process of inventiveness to the next level.

“The key to thinking free is first to allow your mind to contemplate really outrageous ideas, and only subsequently apply the constraints of practicality, practicability, legality, cost, time, and ethics.

“…thinking free is an unnatural act. It therefore requires enormous effort. It also requires the suppression of a completely natural urge to immediately dismiss novel and seemingly ridiculous ideas. If they can do it at all, most people can bear to truly think free only for a matter of minutes. The process exhausts the mind.

“My favorite way to stimulate this kind of thinking free is to force myself to contemplate absolutely outrageous and impossible ways to address a particular problem.

“For example, in 1967 I was struggling to invent a new way to control a dishwasher… At one point I lay on the floor and forced myself to imagine hay bales, elephants, planets, ladybugs, sofas, microbes, newspapers, hydroelectric dams, French horns, electrons and trees, each in turn and in various combinations controlling a dishwasher.

“This exercise was, to say the least, extremely difficult and disconcerting, so much so that I could do it for only 10 minutes at a time. But after a few such sessions I suddenly envisioned an almost complete circuit diagram for a digital electronic control system for a home appliance. This system was unlike anything I or others had ever contemplated before [and] was eventually employed in hundreds of millions of home appliances around the world.

“As improbable as it might sound, this same approach to thinking free can lead to novel ways of addressing some of the many challenges you will confront, no matter what your field or vocation, may be. The key is to break free for just a few minutes from the incredibly tight constraints that rule our thinking almost all of the time, even when we dream or engage in so-called free association.”

After immediately devouring Peter Rollins’ new book The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief (read my initial thoughts), I am now going back and rereading the book, slowly sifting through the material and thinking through the implications of Rollins’ provocative work. As part of this process I will be blogging through the book over the next few weeks. I hope you join me as I wrestle with the significant concepts presented in this book. And I’d love to hear your thoughts along the way.

In the introduction, Rollins presents the question, “What Would Judas Do?” Rollins uses this question as a tool to delve into his notion that we must betray Christianity in order to remain faithful to it. He writes:

“In other words, what would Jesus do when confronted with Christianity today? Would Jesus do what Judas did, and betray it? In saying this I am not hinting at the rather mundane insight that Jesus would betray the anemic, inauthentic, self-serving Churchianity that so often festers quietly under the banner of Christianity today. I am not asking whether Jesus would turn the tables on what passes as contemporary Christianity in favor of a more robust and radical version that may have once existed in an age long past. Rather, by asking whether Jesus would betray Christianity as Judas betrayed Christ, I am asking if Jesus would plot the downfall of Christianity in every form it takes.”

Continuing the introduction, Rollins sees the consequences of this faithful betrayal as twofold:

“First, we are led to embrace the idea of Christianity as a religion without religion, that is, as a tradition, that is always prepared to wrestle with itself, disagree with itself, and betray itself. Second, this requires a way of structuring religious collectives that operate at a deeper level than the mere affirmation of shared doctrines, creeds, and convictions. It involves the formation of dynamic, life-affirming collectives that operate, quite literally, beyond belief.”

At the Emergent Village blog, Rollins further explains the core concept of the book:

“In this work I make the claim that, in order to remain faithful to Christianity, we must be courageous enough to betray the bible (section 1), God (section 2) and the church (section 3). Why? Do I think that we must abandon them as redundant relics of a by-gone era? Do I think that they have served their purpose? Or do I feel that they prevent the world coming of age? By no means! Here I argue for a betrayal that remains faithful to these very words by helping us to re-discover the truly untamed, white-hot, life-transforming reality that they house.” (HT: EV blog)

I hope these quotes intrigue you enough to join in as I discuss this book, and perhaps you will even buy the book and read it with me – I hope you do.

Yikes, I forgot about this one (a post worthy of using the word “yikes”). There was definitely some disagreement in the discussion of this one…and some clear misunderstanding (can misunderstanding be clear?).

This is one of my favorite posts of the year and is probably the most common post people randomly find on Google. At least a couple times every week someone will get to my blog by searching for “should I get circumcised” or “how do I circumcise myself” or other crazy statements like that. I don’t think they end up finding on my blog what they were looking for.

“Religious people speak of God when human knowledge… has come to an end, or when human resources fail – in fact it is always the deus ex machina that they bring on to the scene, either for the apparent solution of insoluble problems, or as strength in human failure – always, that is to say, exploiting human weakness or human boundaries. Of necessity, that can go on only till people can by their own strength push these boundaries somewhat further out, so that God becomes superfluous as a deus ex machina. I’ve come to be doubtful of talking about any human boundaries (is even death, which people now hardly fear, and is sin, which they now hardly understand, still a genuine boundary today?). It always seems to me that we are trying anxiously in this way to reserve some space for God; I should like to speak of God not on the boundaries but at the centre, not in weaknesses but in strength; and therefore not in death and guilt but in man’s life and goodness. As to the boundaries, it seems to me better to be silent and leave the insoluble unsolved. Belief in the resurrection is not the ‘solution’ of the problem of death. God’s ‘beyond’ is not the beyond of our cognitive faculties. The transcendence of epistemological theory has nothing to do with the transcendence of God. God is beyond in the midst of our life.The church stands, not at the boundaries where human powers give out, but in the middle of the village. That is how it is in the Old Testament, and in this sense we still read the New Testament far too little in the light of the Old. How this religionless Christianity looks, what form it takes, is something that I’m thinking about a great deal, and I shall be writing to you again about it soon. It may be that on us in particular, midway between East and West, there will fall a heavy responsibility.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer – Letters and Papers from Prison

________________

(I have compiled a comprehensive collection of excerpts from Letters and Papers from Prison that are related to Bonhoeffer’s concepts of “religionless Christianity,” “Christianity in a world come of age,” and other related matters. View the PDF document.)

The Christian religion, denominations within Christianity, and individual churches often operate as though their particular structures are strong castles that must be defended against enemy attack. In some ways this is understandable. These institutions hold sacred beliefs that are valuable to those involved. Many of these beliefs might even be worth defending. However, the emerging church is not a religion, a church, or a denomination. In some ways it is not even necessarily Christian. In fact, as we’ve discussed, the emerging church does not exist. And this is one of its great advantages. The emerging church has nothing to defend. Nothing to fight for. There are no gates to lock people in or out. Now, this does not mean there is nothing sacred, nothing valuable to those within the emerging church. It simply means that the emerging church is not an object to be held. Rather, the emerging church is something to be given away. It is a conversation. It is for anyone and everyone. No one is excluded. And no one holds all the power. I view the emerging church as a large table. A table where all are welcome. There is always an open seat. While there may be reasons for churches, denominations, and religions to create rules for participation, there are no rules in the emerging church. The conversation is open to all – and the conversation is a friendship.

Let me explain this a little. In many ways, religions, denominations, and churches can never be safe places. Too many things are held sacred. And when those sacred beliefs or practices are challenged, there are those who move in to protect the sacred. This can happen in very simple ways. Someone might question the Bible and be quietly corrected. Another person might express a lack of faith and be told to pray for more faith. These are subtle ways that sacred beliefs are protected. Rather than opening up the question of the Bible’s authority or allowing doubt to coexist with faith, these possibilities are suppressed. This is just one kind of example. There are many. I’m not saying the emerging church is simply a place to doubt. Instead, I’m saying that the emerging church is a place for open conversation without the restricting confines of the walls often found in religious institutions. And hopefully the emerging church also impacts the institutions by creating safe places for conversation among those who may be part of these important institutions.

Does this make sense?

In short, I hope the emerging church is an inclusive and safe place to believe/disbelieve while having conversation about matters related to faith in today’s world.

I have often contemplated the title of my blog (I’ve blogged about it at least three other times – 1, 2, and 3). I don’t know exactly where the title came from. There is a book with the same title, but I’m pretty sure I encountered the book after I started blogging. Either way, “If God is Love” is a phrase full of meaning for me. Mostly it’s a phrase full of hope.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about this title and how it relates to “a new way to believe.” Upon reflection, I’ve realized that the phrase “If God is Love” contains within it at least two questions.

The question of God – “If God” – and the question of God’s Love – “If God is Love.”

At times it may seem that God is not real or at least that God is not love. But for me the giant “if,” the significant uncertainty in this phrase, is not only a signal for the question of God, but also a sign of hope. Hope that there might be a God of Love and a realization of what that means for everything and everyone. The “if” requires faith and hope. I choose to believe. I choose to hope. In the midst of the uncertainty.

This is not a blind hope and a blind faith. I’m not saying that there is an imaginary possibility that God is Love and I choose to believe in that – no, it’s more than that. I believe I have encountered this God of Love. But I also acknowledge that I have encountered the uncertainty.

And so I recognize that I have encountered both the presence of God and the uncertainty of God.

Cheryl Lawrie has some interesting thoughts about alternative communities and looking outside the Christian community. I think she’s talking about “church that’s not a church.” You should read the whole post, but here’s a sample:

“Most conversations about new forms of church or christian community are about rethinking the table at which the disciples sit. True confession… this project doesn’t emerge from any interest in that table, or even really in the disciples. i think the really interesting stuff of the gospels is the other stories – the tables Jesus went to where the disciples weren’t invited, or where they were so absent no-one thought to mention their presence – the afternoons at Mary and Martha’s, the nameless person’s house where Jesus met the syro-phonoecian woman, dinner at Levi’s house, dinner with Peter’s mother, the ‘water into wine’ wedding table… i think they’re the fun tables.”

“Taking a page out of the Billy Sunday playbook, the authors will spread the emergent message of a generous, hope-filled Christian faith in the style and cadence of the tent revival preachers of a hundred years ago. They plan to have fun with it, wearing frock suits and selling “healing balm,” but the goal is, as in the revivals of yore, to preach the good news.”

Ever since reading Peter Rollins’How (Not) to Speak of God I have been looking forward to his next book. In fact, I can’t remember a book I have anticipated more highly. So when The Fidelity of Betrayal arrived on Tuesday I was filled with excitement. That night I read about two thirds of the book and yesterday I finished the last third. I devoured it. I couldn’t read it fast enough. It was wonderful. Sometimes I find it helpful to start engaging a book by reading through it quickly, in order to gain the overall big picture, and then to go through it slowly, savoring every word. I am really looking forward to reading it again and blogging through it, just like I did when I read How (Not) to Speak of God for the second time. Hopefully I can start that in the next couple weeks.

Here are few initial comments related to the new book.

First, I think this book successfully builds upon the concepts in Rollins’ first book and takes them to the next level. So if you’re interested in Rollins’ work, I recommend buying both books and starting with How (Not) to Speak of God. Basically, The Fidelity of Betrayal builds on an idea Rollins started working with in the first book. In fact, he builds on the idea that most intrigued me in his first book – the notion of giving up Christianity in order to truly fulfill it. In his first book Rollins relates a powerful story from the movie Amen in which a priest in Nazi Germany gives up his Christian faith and becomes a Jew in order to identify with the persecuted, a move the priest believes is necessary in order to truly live his Christian beliefs. The Fidelity of Betrayal takes this concept and examines it through three lenses, the Word of God, the Being of God, and the Event of God, which forms the structure for the book.

Second, I’m convinced that Phyllis Tickle is right in her assessment of Rollins’ work. She writes, “Here in pregnant bud is the rose, the emerging new configuration, of a Christianity that is neither Roman nor Protestant, neither Eastern nor monastic; but rather is the re-formation of all of them. Here, in pregnant bud, is third-millennium Christianity.” I really believe it. What Rollins (and others) is writing about and doing may not be the future of Christianity but it is certainly a future of Christianity. And the possibility of this future gives me much hope. I believe the core concepts of this book are going to, and already are starting to re-form Christianity in our world. I’m not talking about a shift in the core beliefs of Christianity, but rather a revolution of how Christianity is experienced and expressed in the world.

Third, Rollins ends his new book with some discussion about starting communities that are forged in the midst of these ideas. He quite literally proposes “a church beyond belief” (the subtitle of the book). In short, Rollins is looking at the implications of moving from the church as a bastion of beliefs, towards communities of transformation. Just as Rollins argues for a “religion without religion” I think he is imagining a sort of church that’s not a church, which is exactly what I am most interested in.

So go buy this book. Read it. Think about it. Argue with it. Soak in it. And in the process, allow God to transform you.

In the previous post I described the shift that has occurred in my faith regarding how I believe. In many ways, the rest of this series will be a further elaboration on that one theme.

As I have moved towards a greater comfort with ambiguity, mystery, and uncertainty in my faith, one result has been a turn towards a more hopeful way of believing. By hopeful I mean a more positive view of the world and the people in the world. Again, I don’t think my theology has changed a great deal. I still believe in sin. I still believe we are in need of redemption. However, as my way of believing has changed, I have become much more willing to accept the ambiguity of our world. How is it that such good and such evil can come from both Christians and non-Christians? Why isn’t there always a marked difference? In dealing with this problem I no longer feel the need to draw thick lines between Christians, who are responsible for all the good in the world, and non-Christians, those unfortunate beings who bring us all down. Sure, this is an exaggeration, but I don’t think it’s far from how many Christians believe. It’s not far from how I believed. I’m now much more likely to see the value in all people, inherent in their very existence, rather than being caught up in such a divisive and destructive way of believing. This way of looking at people has also changed the way I look at the world. Rather than viewing creation as doomed for destruction, with hope I look for the redemption of this world and everything in it. And I don’t only look for transformation to occur in some afterlife, but in the here and now, little by little. As a result, my hope is that I can be an active participant with God in the redemption, reconciliation, restoration, and recreation of all things.

“I often ask myself why a ‘Christian instinct’ often draws me more to the religionless people than to the religious, by which I don’t in the least mean with any evangelizing intention, but, I might almost say, ‘in brotherhood’. While I’m often reluctant to mention God by name to religious people – because that name somehow seems to me here not to ring true, and I feel myself to be slightly dishonest (it’s particularly bad when others start to talk in religious jargon; I then dry up almost completely and feel awkward and uncomfortable) – to people with no religion I can on occasion mention him by name quite calmly and as a matter of course.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer – Letters and Papers from Prison

________________

(I have compiled a comprehensive collection of excerpts from Letters and Papers from Prison that are related to Bonhoeffer’s concepts of “religionless Christianity,” “Christianity in a world come of age,” and other related matters. View the PDF document.)

Now that I’ve declared the emerging church to be non-existent, I hope to explain why I am emerging and how the emerging church has saved my faith. Yeah, I know, I’m trying to have it both ways. You’re right, I’m a cheater. I believe in emerging even though it doesn’t exist. I identify with this non-reality. In fact, I find great hope in this nebulous something-or-other. Call it “emerging,” call it “emergent,” or call it nothing at all, ultimately I don’t care. I’m with you. I’m in. I’m just not going to spend much time talking about terms, or fighting for them one way or the other. I don’t plan on talking about it anymore. I’m interested in the how and not the what. I desire to be productive and constructive. From here on out this series is going to be focused on the hope I find in this new kind of Christianity and how it has helped save my faith.

“This is not then a revolution that seeks to change what we believe, but rather one that sets about transforming the entire manner in which we hold our beliefs.”

I see this as salvation from the dictatorship of having to know with certainty. I no longer feel the need to have proof for all my beliefs and “evidence that demands a verdict.” I feel much more secure with ambiguity and mystery. Now this doesn’t mean I check my brain at the door, and there is a lot more involved in all this than I am discussing here. But ultimately this change in how I believe, rather than in what I believe, has set me free. For the last five or so years this process of changing how I believe has really brought me new hope for my own faith. More than anything else, this has been the greatest service the emerging church has done for me. And I hope this way of believing is the core theological influence the emerging conversation ends up having on the larger church.

In case this still seems somewhat murky, here’s a practical example from my own life.

Brooke and I went through a significant tragedy in experiencing the stillbirth of our first child. This really shook up our world. How could this have happened? We had gone through so much to get pregnant in the first place. God had at last heard our prayers. Everyone spoke of the goodness of God and how he faithfully answered our prayers. We were overjoyed with being pregnant, we were looking forward to the life of our son. But when we lost Zach this whole way of looking at things feel apart. If God had answered our prayers, why had this happened? Did we lack faith? Was God a scam? What about all the promises of the Bible? It was difficult (and still is difficult) to reconcile this event with our beliefs. Were our beliefs simply all wrong? I don’t think so. I still believe God is loving. I believe God hears our prayers. I believe he didn’t want any of this to happen. My beliefs have not really changed all that much. However, how I believe these things has changed considerably. What Rollins wrote has really been true for me – in a sense, nothing changed and yet the shift was so radical that absolutely nothing was left unchanged. I still believe most of the same core concepts about God, but my faith is much more open to doubt, uncertainty, and even at times, unbelief. I feel much more able to hold these seemingly opposing forces in a kind of constructive tension. This doesn’t mean I have everything figured out. Quite the opposite is true. I still don’t understand what happened or why it happened. I have a lot of difficulty with prayer. I still struggle with doubt. But I’m learning how to believe with doubt. I’m learning how to love God even when I am angry at God and do not understand him. Without this shift in how I believe, I don’t think my faith would have survived.

You might think I’m joking. I’m not. You might even think you’ve read articles and even books about the emerging church. You haven’t. And most confusing of all, you might think I’m writing a series on the emerging church. But that is not true, because the emerging church does not exist, and you can’t write a series of blog entries about a topic that does not exist.

Please, allow me to explain.

People like to talk about the emerging church as if it is something you can point out and identify in the real world. But that is simply not the case. Just like there is no such thing as theemerging church, there is also no such thing as anemerging church. The term is simply too subjective, it is defined in widely varying ways, and ultimately it is too broad to mean much of anything. As a result, I don’t think it exists. It’s a myth. An apparition.

One person hears the term “emerging church” and thinks of the use of candles and media in worship services. Another person hears the term and thinks of moral relativism. Still another person thinks the term relates to the church’s engagement with culture. Some people might think the emerging church encompasses all of the above, while others might say all of the above is wrong and actually we should be talking about the emergent church and not the emerging church. That’s right, some people find it important to distinguish between the emerging church and the emergent church. But personally, I don’t think it’s very helpful to replace one meaningless term with yet another.

So what am I getting at? Two things in particular.

One, the term “emerging church” has lost any real meaning or value (if it ever had any in the first place). It is seldom helpful for conversation. In fact, I think using the term is usually a hindrance, rather than an aid, to good conversation.

Two, rather than writing thousands of blog entries trying to describe the emerging church, and creating numerous fancy charts identifying the emerging church, I think we should simply avoid using the term altogether. Instead, just say what you are really talking about – get past the term and talk about something that really does exist, in terms that most everyone can understand and agree upon. Now, don’t get me wrong, there are probably times when it makes sense to use the term (even though it refers to something that doesn’t exist) but for the most part, it only causes problems.

Well, I’m glad we worked that out. The next entry in my series on the topic that shall not be named, will actually work to describe what I am talking about, rather than what I’m not talking about.

This post will be the first in a series on the so called “emerging church.” Get ready. The emerging church is scary (just look at the picture). It’s heretical. And it might just cause you to lose your faith altogether. Well, at least that’s what people say.

To get us started, here are some intriguing words from Peter Rollins about the emerging conversation.

Unlike those who would seek to offer a different set of answers to theological questions, those within the emerging conversation are offering a different way of understanding the answers that we already possess.In other words, those involved in the conversation are not explicitly attempting to construct or unearth a different set of beliefs that would somehow be more appropriate in today’s context, but rather, they are looking at the way in which we hold the beliefs that we already have.This is not then a revolution that seeks to change what we believe, but rather one that sets about transforming the entire manner in which we hold our beliefs.In short, this revolution is not one that merely adds to or subtracts from the world of our understanding, but rather one which provides the necessary tools for us to be able to look at that world in a completely different manner: in a sense, nothing changes and yet the shift is so radical that absolutely nothing will be left unchanged.

I think this notion of changing how we believe, rather than what we believe, is very important. I anticipate that much of my understanding of the emerging church will be centered on this idea.

I am a hypocrite. Hear me roar. I sip my smoothies and blog with my expensive technology. I listen to my indie music with my utilitarian wardrobe. Don’t mess with me! I give money to the poor. I pay extra to get our electricity from “green energy”. Come! Come follow me. Downward mobility is the way to go. But wait . . . I am not going downward. I’m accessorizing my middle mobility. This is not change I am doing. This is not life that I’m creating. I’m perpetuating a myth. I’m soothing my guilt. I am the great politicizer. The great moralizer. The great theorist!

Michael Spencer reminds us of the danger of the gospels. I couldn’t agree more.

You could get a lot of wrong ideas reading the Gospels too much. You could start thinking that Jesus is in favor of some kind of social gospel where people give away lots of things, live in community, get in trouble for their radical compassion and stand outside of the religious establishment much of the time.

In fact, really….the Gospels have some good stories, but wouldn’t we be better off to study things like Romans 3 more often, so we really know what the Gospel is about?

In discussing downward mobility and the way of Jesus, I think it is important to stop and consider Jesus for a minute.

C.S. Lewis famously wrote: “You must make your choice. Either [Jesus] was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse.”

There is a lot we could discuss about this statement, and there are even potential problems with the statement, but I simply want us to consider that Lewis left out at least one other option.

What if Jesus was the Son of God and a madman?

I think we need to seriously consider this option.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Jesus was mentally insane. But that’s not the only definition for a madman. Webster defines a madman as “a man who is or acts as if insane.” I propose that Jesus taught and lived in ways we would certainly consider crazy, bizarre, reckless, and yes, even insane. One definition for insanity is “something utterly foolish or unreasonable.” I think much of Jesus’ life and teaching fits under this description.

Consider a very small portion of the evidence (just nine short verses from Matthew 5):

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

This is all very unreasonable. And seemingly, quite foolish.

So let’s not dismiss the idea of downward mobility (as I would like to) simply because it appears unreasonable and foolish. We must remember, when we look at Jesus we are looking into the eyes of a madman.

“The questions to be answered would surely be: What do a church, a community, a sermon, a liturgy, a Christian life mean in a religionless world? How do we speak of God – without religion, i.e. without the temporally conditioned presuppositions of metaphysics, inwardness, and so on? How do we speak (or perhaps we cannot now even ‘speak’ as we used to) in a ‘secular’ way about ‘God’? In what way are we ‘religionless-secular’ Christians, in what way are we the ecclesia, those who are called forth, not regarding ourselves from a religious point of view as specially favoured, but rather as belonging wholly to the world? In that case Christ is no longer an object of religion, but something quite different, really the Lord of the world. But what does that mean? What is the place of worship and prayer in a religionless situation?”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer – Letters and Papers from Prison

________________

(I have compiled a comprehensive collection of excerpts from Letters and Papers from Prison that are related to Bonhoeffer’s concepts of “religionless Christianity,” “Christianity in a world come of age,” and other related matters. View the PDF document.)

I read a recently released book this past week called My Beautiful Idol, by first time author Pete Gall.My Beautiful Idol is a confessional memoir following Gall’s faith journey through his mid-twenties.I’m a sucker for memoirs.Yes, they are all the rage nowadays, and as much as I might like to resist current fads, I can’t resist this one.I appreciate memoirs because they are honest.Not just honest about real life events, but honest enough to acknowledge that our understanding of God, faith, and spirituality always comes from our experiences.I agree with Frederick Buechner who says that ultimately all theology is a form of autobiography.Fancy theologians often fail to acknowledge this.The memoir puts it right out in the open – I appreciate that.

Even though I’m a sucker for memoirs, I’m also kind of skeptical of Christian memoirs from the past couple years.My tendency is to assume they are all just attempts to emulate Donald Miller and to make a buck off the memoir craze.So part of me almost didn’t want to like My Beautiful Idol.But I did enjoy it – it’s a good book.And even though it is a good story and an enjoyable read, that’s not really what won me over.Ultimately this is a book I can recommend because it really made me think, and that’s perhaps the most important element I look for in a book.

In the preface Gall sums up his book as “a story about how I’m a butt, and have been for some time now.”And then “the catch” – “I was also exactly the sort of Christian people tend to refer to as a hero.”The book follows Gall’s pursuit of “downward mobility” (uh oh) and tracks his various attempts at ministry, relationships, and finding meaning and significance in life.Gall’s theme throughout is that all of these experiences were ultimately a chasing after “a variety of beautiful idols,” and “the version of myself I’ve sought to create.”All of this talk about idols is what really got me thinking.

Gall spends a lot of time in his book describing how he created idols of what it looks like to be “a great man of God” or to really make a difference in the world.Through stories from his experiences he does a lot to deconstruct the popular ideas of what it means to be a “successful” Christian or a faithful follower of Jesus.His experiences in ministry also lead to quite critical conclusions regarding typical understandings of what it means to serve God and serve others.As you might have guessed, all of this really caused me to reflect on my own life and desires to be a follower of Jesus.Have I simply created a bunch of idols?Am I worshiping a bunch of self-created ideas of what it means, or might mean, to follow Jesus?I don’t know.But these are good things to think about.

In summary, if you are looking for an enjoyable and thought provoking read, and if you enjoy memoirs, then I definitely recommend My Beautiful Idol.While at times it is a little disjointed (what memoir isn’t?), and even though I wasn’t particularly happy with the conclusion, ultimately this is a thoughtful book exploring and deconstructing ideas of what it means to be a follower of Jesus in today’s world.

…when Jesus talks about the truth, he talks about life. The truth is what brings life. My axiom for today is that Christianity at its core doesn’t explain life but it brings life. We must thus ask whether our beliefs and actions bring life, healing and love to the people in the world. To bring live into the world is to know God for God is love. This is not the knowledge of creeds and theology but the knowledge of a transforming relationship with the source of all love. Truth in Christianity is thus different from the way we understand truth in the world, for the truth of Christianity is life, not description. This is what I talk about heretical orthodoxy, i.e. someone who does not understand God yet who changes the world in love.

the story i keep hearing from people who have intentionally and deliberately not chosen Christianity is that they are treated with disdain by some who have, being spouted lines like ‘you just haven’t heard about the christianity / god / faith that i know’. some people actually know about christianity and choose not to go there. how arrogant and smug of christians to assume that they know better…

This year marks the arrival of two more books in this promising series.In February Jones’ The New Christians released and in June A Christianity Worth Believing, written by Doug Pagitt, will hit shelves.I have had the opportunity to read both of these books over the past month or so, and I can definitely recommend both of them to anyone who is interested in further exploring the Emergent conversation.

The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier, despite its goofy cover, is an excellent introduction to all things Emergent.Tony Jones does a great job outlining many of the characteristics of an Emergent way of faith, while also providing an insider’s perspective on how much of the conversation began in the United States.This really is a must-read for anyone who is deep into the conversation, but is especially perfect for those who are new to the conversation and want to learn more about what it’s all about.In reading this book it’s important to acknowledge that it does primarily focus on the Emergent conversation in the United States.This is not a fault of the book, but must be acknowledged.For a more global perspective, or at least a perspective that includes the UK, one should read Emerging Churches by Gibbs and Bolger (another personal favorite, and a must-read).

A Christianity Worth Believing lives up to everything its subtitle promises (which is a lot) – it really does present a “Hope-filled, Open-armed, Alive-and-well Faith for the Left Out, Left Behind, and Let Down in us All.”To be honest, I was a little afraid Pagitt’s and Jones’ books would be too similar.I was completely wrong – they are both great reads, and are quite distinct from each other.This book is a great book for anyone in need of a more hopeful Christianity, a Christianity that doesn’t begin by telling us how we are such terrible sinners, but instead tells us the hopeful story of Jesus.Pagitt outlines a beautiful faith perspective, which is elucidated through many personal reflections and stories, which are at times quite moving. In short, this is a book for all of us.Don’t we all need to be reminded that the story of Jesus is a story about really, really good news?It was something I was very grateful to be reminded of.

So here’s the short of it, these three books are well-worth reading.And after you read the books, you can catch Mark, Tony and Doug touring the country this summer for their Church Basement Roadshow: A Rollin’ Gospel Revival – you wouldn’t want to miss an event with a name like that, right?!

Growing up in a white, middle-class, Christian home, and regularly attending a protestant church, I learned the concepts of the protestant work ethic and upward mobility from an early age. I didn’t use the terms, but I was fully indoctrinated into the overarching belief system.

“Work hard.”

“Do well in school.”

“Take advantage of your many opportunities.

“Get a good job.”

“Save money.”

“Spend wisely.”

I heard all of these exhortations quite often while I was growing up. At home. At church. At school. These concepts played a large role in forming me into who I am today. For much of it I feel quite grateful. I’m glad I am well educated. I’m glad I have never had to really worry about money. I’m glad I learned how to work hard.

But something about all of this doesn’t sit right. I believe in working hard. I believe in being wise in how I use my money. I believe in the importance of education. But somehow all of these things became very connected with faith while I was growing up. It wasn’t just that I should work hard, do well in school, and spend my money wisely. There was also an underlying assumption that these qualities were not just “keys to success” but also characteristics of a “good Christian life.”

I don’t buy that anymore.

This belief system I grew up in, a belief system that has been handed down from generation to generation in America, must come to an end. The marriage of these concepts with Christianity must be annulled. Jesus did not live a life of upward mobility. In fact, it’s hard to argue against the idea that his message should lead to a certain kind of downward mobility for people like me.

But it’s not easy to change.

By getting a good education, working hard, making good grades, going to graduate school, buying a home, and starting a family, I have joined myself to this system with bonds that are very difficult to break.

I hardly know how else to live. How can I begin to climb down this ladder? How can I get off the ladder altogether?

These are the questions I am asking myself right now.

What does Jesus’ message of downward mobility for the middle-class, white, American mean for me?

What does it mean for my career?

How should I even think about my career?

What about my budget? My expenses? My debt? Where I live? What car I drive?

And perhaps most importantly, what does the alternative look like? How does one live the Jesus way, rather than the way of upward mobility, with a family, a job, and a mortgage?

I am asking if Jesus would plot the downfall of Christianity in every form that it takes. Or rather, to be more precise, I am asking whether Christianity, in its most sublime and revolutionary state, always demands an act of betrayal from the Faithful. In short, is Christianity, at its most radical, always marked by a kiss, forever forsaking itself, eternally at war with its own manifestation.

Such thinking leads to the seemingly paradoxical idea that the deepest way in which we can demonstrate our fidelity to Christianity is to engage in a betrayal of it.

And,

Christianity is not brain surgery or rocket science, it is not quantum mechanics or nuclear physics; it is both infinitely easier and more difficult than all of these. The fragile flame of faith is fanned into life so simply: all we need do is sit still for a few moments, embrace the silence that engulfs us, and invite that flame to burn bright within us. This act is simplicity itself, and, just perhaps, after a lifetime of hardship and struggle, a few of us will achieve it and be set alight by it.

Thursday tends to be a busy day for me at work – I talk to lots of people and end up wanting some time to myself. So at lunch I often take a break by going to the library to browse, read, etc (yes, I’m a nerd). I’ve done this a number of times. But my experience today was definitely a first.

I was in the Dietrich Bonhoeffer biography section, browsing through various books, when someone came and stood next to me. It was one of those awkward moments when you don’t know if you should turn and look or just ignore – you know what I mean? Well, I decided to turn and look. When I did the person was just standing there looking at me. I could tell he was slightly nervous and I didn’t know what to think about it. Before I could ask him if there was something I could help him with, he asked me a question. He said, “Can I talk to you about God?” I must admit, I was completely thrown off guard and didn’t know how to respond. My first response was, “No, I’m actually busy at the moment.” When I said this he just kind of stood there in silence. This made me wonder if maybe he was asking me to talk to him about God. I didn’t want to turn him down if that was the case, so I asked him, “Was there something in particular you wanted to talk about?” He had a hard time answering this question but eventually responded with, “Well, I just wanted to tell you about Jesus.” Still quite uncertain how to respond, I ended up telling him I wasn’t exactly wanting someone to tell me about Jesus. He didn’t say much in response but a minute later I heard him asking the same question to someone else. Isn’t that bizarre? I’ve seen this around campus before, but never in the middle of the library!

So, what do you think about this kind of guerrilla evangelism? Is there a place for it in Christianity? Is it a good thing?

Not that there’s anything wrong with the ‘old’ Jesus. I’m just not sure he’s quite the same anymore.

I started thinking about this because of Easter. I was wondering what the average Christian, and the average non-Christian, thinks about Easter. What do they think of the man on the cross? What do they think of the risen Christ? I imagine they don’t think about him much at all. He’s too used and abused these days. Same old Easter stories, same old pictures, same old songs. I wonder if he could ever be recaptured. Could he ever again come to us as the incarnate God? Or is he ever to remain the Jesus of our low expectations?

Imagine what it was like to meet the real Jesus. The one who lived, died, and came back to life two thousand years ago. I mean the shocking Jesus. Jesus the revolutionary teacher. Jesus the healer and miracle worker. Jesus the instigator. Jesus the radical man of peace. The Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God. The Jesus who turned everyone’s expectations upside-down.

I just don’t know if this Jesus can ever be the same again.

Some people might say that today Jesus is to be found in the Church, in Christians who are the body of Christ in this world. But I wonder if God really inhabits the Church anymore. Is this really God incarnate for us today? I don’t know.

Throughout the story of scripture, God came to people in fresh ways. Could he come to us anew today? Could God come to us again in such a way as to wake us up and stir us to action? Could there ever be a new Jesus? Or at least a startlingly new Christianity? One more provocative and life-changing than ever before?

Perhaps God is doing this already. Are there already new ways God is making himself known in our world? Where is God to be seen? Maybe God has even moved on from Christianity, making himself known here and there and wherever the true Spirit of Jesus is welcome – whether he goes by that name or not.

———————-

“Our church…is incapable of taking the word of reconciliation and redemption to mankind and the world. Our earlier words are therefore bound to lose their force and cease, and our being Christians today will be limited to two things; prayer and righteous action among men. All Christian thinking, speaking, and organizing must be born anew out of this prayer and action…It is not for us to prophesy the day (although the day will come) when men will once more be called so to utter the word of God that the world will be changed and renewed by it. It will be a new language, perhaps quite non-religious, but liberating and redeeming – as was Jesus’ language; it will shock people and yet overcome them by its power; it will be the language of a new righteousness and truth, proclaiming God’s peace with men and the coming of his kingdom…Till then the Christian cause will be a silent and hidden affair, but there will be those who pray and do right and wait for God’s own time. May you be one of them…”

“It may be that in many things I seem to you to be somewhat fanatical and crazy. I myself sometimes have anxiety about this. But I know that, if I were more reasonable, for the sake of honor, I should have to, the next day, give up all my theology. When I first began theology, I imagined it to be somewhat different – perhaps more like an academic affair. Now it has become something completely different from that. And I now believe I know at last that I am at least on the right track – for the first time in my life. And that often makes me very glad. I continue to fear only that I might no longer appreciate the genuine anxiety for meaning of other people, but remain set in my ways. I believe I know that inwardly I shall be really clear and honest only when I have begun to take seriously the Sermon on the Mount. Here is set the only source of power capable of exploding the whole enchantment and specter [Hitler and his rule] so that only a few burnt-out fragments are left remaining from the fireworks. The restoration of the church will surely come form a sort of new monasticism which has in common with the old only the uncompromising attitude of a life lived according to the Sermon on the Mount in the following of Christ. I believe it is now time to call people to this.

“…I still can’t ever believe that you really consider all these thoughts to be so completely insane. At present there are still some things for which an uncompromising stand is worthwhile. And it seems to me that peace and social justice or Christ himself are such.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, from a letter to Karl-Friedrich Bonhoeffer in A Testment to Freedom (p. 424)

I recently finished reading School(s) for Conversion: 12 Marks of a New Monasticism, which is a collection of essays written by various individuals from multiple Christian communities across the US. Before reading the book, I was already quite intrigued by this movement of “neo-monasticism.” After reading, I am even more interested. In 2004 a gathering of new monastic communities developed the following document to help identify and understand the movement. The book is an elaboration on each of the 12 marks.

——————

Moved by God’s Spirit in this time called America to assemble at St. Johns Baptist Church in Durham, NC, we wish to acknowledge a movement of radical rebirth, grounded in God’s love and drawing on the rich tradition of Christian practices that have long formed disciples in the simple Way of Christ. This contemporary school for conversion which we have called a “new monasticism,” is producing a grassroots ecumenism and a prophetic witness within the North American church which is diverse in form, but characterized by the following marks:

1. Relocation to the abandoned places of Empire.

2. Sharing economic resources with fellow community members and the needy among us.

3. Hospitality to the stranger

4. Lament for racial divisions within the church and our communities combined with the active pursuit of a just reconciliation.

5. Humble submission to Christ’s body, the church.

6. Intentional formation in the way of Christ and the rule of the community along the lines of the old novitiate.

7. Nurturing common life among members of intentional community.

8. Support for celibate singles alongside monogamous married couples and their children.

9. Geographical proximity to community members who share a common rule of life.

10. Care for the plot of God’s earth given to us along with support of our local economies.

11. Peacemaking in the midst of violence and conflict resolution within communities along the lines of Matthew 18.

12. Commitment to a disciplined contemplative life.

May God give us grace by the power of the Holy Spirit
to discern rules for living that will help us
embody these marks in our local contexts as signs
of Christ’s kingdom for the sake of God’s world.

——————

I think there is a lot to talk about here. But that will be another post.

“Our whole nineteen-hundred-year-old Christian preaching and theology rest on the ‘religious a priori’ of mankind. ‘Christianity’ has always been a form – perhaps the true form – of ‘religion’. But if one day it becomes clear that this a priori does not exist at all, but was a historically conditioned and transient form of human self-expression, and if therefore man becomes radically religionless…what does that mean for ‘Christianity’? … How can Christ become the Lord of the religionless as well? Are there religionless Christians? If religion is only a garment of Christianity – and even this garment has looked very different at times – then what is a religionless Christianity?”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer – Letters and Papers from Prison

Thoughts/Response

Such an interesting question, “How can Christ become the Lord of the religionless…?”

Bonhoeffer doesn’t ask, “How can Christianity appeal to non-Christians?” Nor does he ask, “How can we find common ground among religions.” Instead, he wonders how Christ can be Lord of those with no interest in religion, and/or those who are unaffected by religion (even if they profess to be religious).

I think what he is really saying is, “Does the life and teaching of Jesus matter in today’s world? And if so, how?”

I’m becoming more and more convinced that it does matter. But what can/should it look like? I think about this a lot…

———————-

(I have compiled a comprehensive collection of excerpts from Letters and Papers from Prison that are related to Bonhoeffer’s concepts of “religionless Christianity,” “Christianity in a world come of age,” and other related matters. View the PDF document.)

Last night Brooke and I went with a number of friends to see Shane Claiborne and the David Crowder Band at UBC in Waco (a benefit for Mission Waco). I read Shane’s Irresistible Revolution last year and found it to be quite provocative. I just got his new book, Jesus for President, and I’m really looking forward to reading it as well. So anyways, I was definitely excited about going last night because I think highly of Shane. I was also looking forward to David Crowder, even though I’m not real familiar with his music.

Shane was his typical revolutionary and radical self. You know, a crazy person, someone who actually thinks we should do the things Jesus taught. A complete nutcase (kind of like Jesus). He was great. But his message is not really what has me thinking today. Instead, I find myself thinking about “Evangelical worship.”

I went into the event last night expecting a David Crowder concert. However, it turned out to be more of a worship event – everyone was singing, they had the words projected on the wall, etc. I don’t know what to think about this kind of thing anymore. It’s just been a long time since I was able to really sing worship songs. Now don’t get me wrong, I tend to like David Crowder. I think he is musically talented and I really believe he desires to move beyond typical worship music. So please understand, I’m not critiquing him as much as the whole genre of “Evangelical worship.” After the event last night I’ve just been wondering what the purpose of it is. Why sing emotionally charged worship songs? Why? Because it feels good? Because it’s fun? If those are the answers, I can kind of understand it – and I don’t think I would have much against it. But I think the typical answer is that the purpose is to “praise God.” Now of course I’m not going to argue that we shouldn’t praise God. We should. I even think music and singing can be an excellent way to praise God. But what is the fruit that comes from praising God in the manner of typical Evangelical worship? Good feelings? Warm fuzzies? Most people would probably say that the purpose is to develop a deepened interior spirituality and/or connection with God. I guess I’m just questioning if this is really a result of the typical Evangelical worship experience. Maybe it is. But I’m not so sure. What do you think?

Last night Shane shared a great message. He really challenged us to listen to what Jesus said and to actually do it. He told some great stories of experiences in his own life when he stepped out and tried to live like Jesus. His life story is really powerful. While he spoke there were many who seemed to nod or ‘amen’ in approval. I would imagine many people heard what Shane said and really felt an internal pull to change and to live the message of Jesus. I might even say Shane’s message probably left some people with a sense of discomfort – a good sense of discomfort.

However, it was at this point of discomfort and conviction that the event turned to more worship music. The next thirty minutes or so were filled with upbeat, emotionally charged, and exciting music. It was even good music. I enjoyed Crowder’s music. But I fear that this music only comforted the discomfort that may have been brewing within people. Instead of leaving the event with an internal discontent and a desire to change, people left with a good beat in their head and an adrenaline high.

Is this good? Am I being too harsh? Am I just screwy? What do you think about it all?

Until I get my fill, every Thursday I’m going to post quotes from Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Sometimes I’ll comment on the quote, other times I’ll just let it stand on its own. Bonhoeffer’s Letters & Papers from Prison has been impacting me in very significant ways over the past 4-5 months. Most, if not all, of the quotes I share will be from this particular collection of writings.

———————-

“You would be surprised, and perhaps even worried, by my theological thoughts and the conclusions that they lead to… What is bothering me incessantly is the question what Christianity really is, or indeed who Christ really is, for us today. The time when people could be told everything by means of words, whether theological or pious, is over, and so is the time of inwardness and conscience – and that means the time of religion in general. We are moving towards a completely religionless time; people as they are now simply cannot be religious any more. Even those who honestly describe themselves as ‘religious’ do not in the least act up to it, and so they presumably mean something quite different by ‘religious.’”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison

———————-

(I have compiled a comprehensive collection of excerpts from Letters and Papers from Prison that are related to Bonhoeffer’s concepts of “religionless Christianity,” “Christianity in a world come of age,” and other related matters. View the PDF document.)

In Part 1, I tried to summarize some of this past weekend’s Everything Must Change Tour with Brian McLaren, which took place in Dallas on Friday and Saturday. In Part 2 I’m going to give more of my own personal reaction to the conference.

The Overall Message

Regarding the message of the conference, I’m completely onboard. I’ve read Everything Must Change twice now and I’ve really bought into McLaren’s line of thinking. (If you haven’t read the book or heard about the book, basically, McLaren is proposing that Jesus’ message of the Kingdom of God should deeply impact the way we as Christian’s think about and act on the world’s biggest problems. You can read a great summary of the book at Mark’s blog.) However, having read the book twice before the conference actually made the conference less exciting for me. I must say I was slightly disappointed that much of McLaren’s talks were summaries of portions of the book. I probably should have expected this but I really would have loved for the conference to have focused on how to respond to the message in the book. With that being said, I did really enjoy the sessions and I thought they were excellent. They just didn’t impact me as much as I would have liked because I was already quite familiar with much of the material. This isn’t really a complaint – just a little bit of a personal disappointment.The Format and Tone

McLaren and his fellow Deep Shift cohorts definitely worked hard to create an event that went well beyond mere intellectual discussion. There was considerable music, liturgy, art, personal interaction, and times for reflection built into the conference. This was great. Personally, I didn’t connect with the music very much, but that is probably primarily due to my own issues. I could tell that the music leaders and McLaren were wanting to move past typical worship music. While I appreciated this, I still didn’t quite connect. However, I did really connect with a lot of the liturgical aspects of the event and the artistic portions. These aspects of the event really added to the overall impact of the message. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and time that obviously went into planning the integration of these various elements.

The Communal Element

Because much of the information presented during the event was very familiar to me, I was especially glad that I was able to connect with various individuals at the event and meet a number of new people. This probably was the highlight of the weekend for me. To all who I met and connected with this weekend, I hope we can stay in touch and be resources for one another.

One note regarding the audience present at the event. I was really surprised that the audience was much older on average than I would have expected. Perhaps this was because there were a number of people present from the host church…? I don’t know, but it did make for an interesting community of people present for the conference. In addition, my impression was that many of the people present were there to explore McLaren and his ideas, rather than already having bought into his message. I don’t mean this in a positive or negative way, I just thought it was interesting.

Overall Impression

In conclusion, I’m really glad we were able to go to the conference. However, even though I know Brian did not intend this, I did come away overwhelmed and even slightly dejected. The material in the first two sessions is really overwhelming and disturbing. I would have liked more help with how to respond to the message. This isn’t so much a criticism as it is a desire for more. I feel like we needed more time to work through helping each other think about how to integrate the message into our lives in productive ways. Don’t get me wrong, I really appreciate McLaren’s call to believe the message (and disbelieve the suicidal system) as the first step. I guess I’m just wanting help in moving beyond just believing into real action.

All of this is actually something I was thinking about even before going to the conference. The week before the event I reread Everything Must Change and was really struck by the need for practical help. I do not mean this in the “five steps to change the world” sense that Brian was really trying to avoid. Rather, I think it would be very beneficial for a book to be written (or something like that) that would give some very practical examples of ways people are living the change in their own lives. It wouldn’t have to be big things. In fact, I prefer small things. Small things that average normal people like you and me can begin to integrate into our lives. I think this would be helpful to many people. There were actually a number of people I talked to at the event who expressed being overwhelmed and/or even depressed after hearing the first couple messages. This was certainly not McLaren’s intention but I think it is evidence of a deadened imagination among many Christians in today’s world – this is certainly the case for me. I think many of us have been going along in the suicidal system of this world for so long, and with such a lack of attention and concern for the world, that we have little creative imagination for seeing what change might look like in our own lives, and in the world. This is what I am thinking about more than anything after this weekend. I’m even wondering if there is something I can do about it, something I can work on to help with this situation – not just for my benefit but for the benefit of others as well. In fact, I think this fits perfectly with Brian’s desire to inspire a hopeful revolution. I want to be a part of this. The time is now. In fact, perhaps some of these thoughts I just expressed describe how I should move forward from here.

Brooke and I just spent this past weekend at the Dallas stop of Brian McLaren’s Everything Must Change Tour. Going into the event, I had no idea what to expect. I was excited to go and was glad there was a good group going from the Emergent Waco cohort, but I really had no idea what to expect. This was probably good and bad. Good because I was open to anything happening. But bad because I probably did have some subconscious expectations that didn’t end up getting met.

It was clear that a lot of work went into planning the event. Here’s a bit of an overview for those who might be interested.

On Friday night there was one long session which included music, art appreciation and reflection, alternative worship, and an excellent overview by Brian of the suicidal system he presents in his book (if you would like to read a great summary of McLaren’s book, Everything Must Change, I highly recommend the one Mark put together).

Saturday began with a Q&A intended for Emergent cohort members and church planters. This was probably my favorite scheduled part of the event. In fact, I would have been perfectly thrilled for this to continue all day long. I’ve heard Brian speak multiple times but my two favorite times with him involved extensive Q&A – I think a much more complete picture of Brian’s vision comes through during these times.

Following the Q&A was Session 2 of the conference. This session was entitled “Which Jesus” and largely paralleled the similar discussion in the book. I really enjoyed this session because it helped bring to life this part of the book for me in a new way. Again, Mark’s summary of the book is a good place to go for more info if you haven’t read the book yet. Session 3 was a panel discussion involving Brian and four local leaders who discussed their work and hopefully spurred people’s imagination to see ways to be part of the change already being promoted by local faith communities and organizations. The session ended with a slideshow presentation by Brian in which he gave the audience a “tour” of the D.C. war memorials and used this as a basis to touch on the security/peace crisis he talks about in the book. I thought this was a really creative and helpful way to engage this topic. During the lunch break Brooke and I joined a short informal Q&A session with Brian which mainly continued the discussion regarding war. The main part of the discussion was related to just war theory. Brian responded with a call to peacemaking, and without saying his specific opinion on just war theory, he did say that a just war is certainly better than the alternative. He also talked about the need to add the Geneva Convention as a continued progression of just war theory. Lastly, he questioned whether it is even possible for today’s America to be part of a “just war.”

After lunch there were two more sessions before the conference came to an end. Session four was facilitated by Linnea Nilsen Capshaw, who was Brian’s partner in leading the conference. This session primarily focused on provoking reflection and used an art collection called “Nude Truths” as a way of guiding the reflection. I appreciated that throughout the event there was a focus on reflection and conversation. During each session there were times allotted to discussing the topics with others around you. While this is sometimes awkward, I did think it was good and led to some helpful conversations (at least for me). In session four I also really enjoyed the artwork as an aid to reflection. I thought it was very helpful and fit with the overall tone and theme of the conference.

The final session was led by Brian and focused on the “revolution of hope.” I thought this session was a great way to end the conference. Much of the material in the first two sessions can be quite overwhelming. I think Brian did a good job in this last session to call people to simply believe in a new way, to believe that change in possible, and to embrace the call of Jesus to be part of the work of the Kingdom of God. Brian specifically said he did not want to tell everyone what to do in response to this conference, he said he did not want to give us the five simple steps to changing the world, or anything like that. Instead, as in the book, he called us to simply disbelieve the suicidal framing story we are part of and to embrace and believe Jesus’ message of the Kingdom of God. He did give some practical examples of what it might look like to begin to change, but he was very careful not to place a huge burden on everyone, which I really appreciated. Instead, he proposed that this is a matter of changing direction and beginning to make small changes, as possible.

Wow, I just wrote a lot more than I set out to write. I think I’ll save my more subjective reaction to the conference for a follow up post. Hopefully this post served as somewhat of a summary of what the conference was like and what it involved.

I know this excerpt is pretty familiar but I have been thinking about it lately and wondered if you all might have some input concerning my questions below.

From The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis:

Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him.

But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome.

But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash.

He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.

Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one?

The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?

I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.

Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou shouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.

If this is true, what are the implications? Doesn’t it seem to suggest that belief in Jesus and in certain things about Jesus (orthodoxy) is not important in comparison to the way we live our lives (orthopraxy)? What would that mean for evangelism? Would we be right to encourage those who are following “Tash” but are living a life of service and love?

I’m asking these questions honestly and would really love to know your thoughts on the matter.

I’ve watched the movie Amazing Grace a couple times in the past month or so. If you haven’t seen it, you should bump it to the top of your queue. If you live near me, I’d be glad to let you borrow our copy.

Anyways, if you don’t know already, the movie is about William Wilberforce and his work (along with his friends) to end the slave trade in the United Kingdom.

In searching for a little more information about Wilberforce, I came across some information about Wilberforce’s group of friends – the Clapham Sect. The Clapham Sect worked together to bring about social change in many different areas within UK society. I found the following characteristics of the Clapham Sect at OnMovements and thought this was worth sharing and discussing.

…the Clapham Sect shared these characteristics:

1. A common commitment to Jesus Christ and a clear sense of calling.

2. A commitment to lifelong friendship and mutual submission.

3. A thoughtful pursuit of causes marked by careful research, planning and strategy.

4. A friendship that was inclusive and focused on essentials. (Wilberforce, for example was Wesleyan and his closest friend Henry Thornton a Calvinist.)

5. A long view on completing projects. Abolition of the slave trade took over 20 years.

6. They saw no dichotomy between evangelism and social action. Their magazine, The Christian Observer, exemplified this.

7. Their faith was integral to all of life…family, career, friendship and more. They allowed no compartmentalization.

8. They made family life a clear priority and delighted in each other’s marriages and children.

9. They enabled one another. They recognized each other’s passions and supported one another in them.

10. They worshiped both privately and publicly, gathering twice weekly at the Clapham Church.

I think this relates to my previous post. What do you think? Can this happen today? Is it already happening in certain places/groups?

I found the last two paragraphs of the article particularly challenging:

It is a good lesson for this year’s presidential race. Change must go deeper than politics. In fact, unless change goes deeper, politics won’t really change. No matter which candidate finally wins this presidential election, he or she will not be able to really change the big things in the U.S. and the world that must be changed, unless and until there are social movements pushing for those changes from outside of politics. Because when politics fails to resolve or even address the most significant moral issues, what often occurs is that social movements rise up to change politics; and the best social movements always have spiritual foundations.

Even a candidate who runs on change, really wants it, and goes to Washington to make it, will confront a vast array of powerful forces which will do everything possible to prevent real change. Politics is unlikely to be changed merely from within – no matter who wins, and no matter how sincere they are, we will not see significant change unless, and until, the pressure increases from the outside. Remember, President Lyndon Johnson didn’t become a civil rights leader until Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks made him one.

After reading this article I feel challenged to ask myself two questions:

This is a document I put together with the help of notes from many others in the church I am a part of. Basically I wanted to narrow down the message of Luke to several recurring themes (I ended up with seven). If you get a chance to read through this, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Did I miss something really important? (I’m sure I did) Did I include something that isn’t really in Luke? (probably so – but I tried not to)

———————–

The Good News of the Kingdom of God

Because of his goodness and love for all creation, God is establishing a revolutionary new world order – an underground and growing movement. This movement is inaugurated by the coming of Jesus of Nazareth – the long-awaited Messiah and the unique Son of God. Jesus came to declare a message that God’s new world order has arrived and will one day come in fullness. We are called to join this movement now and to proclaim Jesus’ revolutionary message of hope to all who have ears to hear. By joining this Kingdom, we are called to a new way of living. The result of Jesus’ kingdom living was crucifixion. But death cannot contain the Kingdom of God. After his sacrificial death, Jesus resurrected and ascended into heaven. The people of God’s Kingdom also live in hope for their own resurrection and for the future return of Jesus who will come to bring the fullness of the Kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of God looks radically different than the kingdoms of this world

The Kingdom of God is not a Kingdom of violence but one of sacrifice and service. It is a kingdom from above and an active movement of God into this world. Rather than being overt and obvious, this Kingdom is spreading and growing in subversive and underground ways that may go unseen and unnoticed by many. But let there be no doubt, the Kingdom of God is among us and even within us. The Kingdom of God is not an exclusive Kingdom but is radically inclusive and open to all who will follow and obey, especially those who are among “the least” – poor, sinners, women, Gentiles, unclean, hungry, distraught, marginalized, prisoners, sick, oppressed, children, uneducated, have-nots, servants, slaves. In the Kingdom of God the least are the greatest and the humble are exalted. In the Kingdom of God the unbelievable and impossible is expected and anticipated. At times the Kingdom defies our expectations, but it always works for the redemption and healing of the world.

People must have a fertile and open heart to hear and receive Jesus’ message of the Good News of the Kingdom of God

Those who hear Jesus’ message must have eyes to see and ears to hear in order to truly receive the good news of the Kingdom of God. God does not come to the proud but to the humble and trusting. Jesus’ message only settles and grows in soft and open hearts, just as a seed settles and grows in soft soil. Jesus seeks after those with an openness to his message and a willingness to believe.

Joining the movement of the Kingdom of God requires radical sacrifice and a change of heart, which is revealed as one follows, trusts, and obeys Jesus

Those who have soft and fertile hearts to receive the message of the Kingdom will respond in repentance leading to forgiveness. These ones will not be ashamed of Jesus and will give up their treasures and desires found in this world. Entering the Kingdom of God is not easy for those who hold on tightly to the things of this world but to those who release the cares of this world, the smallest faith imaginable is enough to bring acceptance into the Kingdom. While many will give up great riches or pleasures to follow Jesus, all must daily deny the kingdoms and treasures of this world to continually live in and contribute to God’s Kingdom.

Following Jesus and living in the Kingdom of God leads to a new way of living and acting in this world

To live as a member of the Kingdom one will first and foremost love the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – who is now revealed as the God of all people. This love for God will also lead to a new and empowered love for others. Jesus taught and modeled this life of love through his life and teachings, which he called for his followers to not only hear, but most importantly, to obey. Jesus’ teachings are exemplified by radical acceptance and forgiveness of others, the pursuit of justice for the oppressed and marginalized, humility, love for enemies, the giving up of possessions, giving to the poor without expectation of repayment or reward, service and sacrifice for others, the pursuit of peace, faith in God’s provision, compassion for those who are sick or in prison, and refusing the place of honor. However, Jesus has not given his followers a new law; rather, he has called his followers to remember the spirit and meaning of the law. In all matters Jesus calls his followers to pray for the Kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven and for God’s will to be done.

There is God-power for those who believe and enter into life in the Kingdom of God

Even as Jesus spent many hours in solitude and prayer, so also God’s people will pray and find power to live the way of Jesus and the Kingdom. This power will come not only through prayer but also, and especially, through the sending of the Holy Spirit for all of God’s people. Jesus taught that God gives good gifts to his children and will certainly give the Holy Spirit to all who ask. Jesus promised that he would give his followers the words to say in times of great need and he proclaimed power from on high for all those who receive the Holy Spirit. As a result, following Jesus, living in the Kingdom, and obeying Jesus’ teachings is natural for all who hear the Good News of the Kingdom of God and trust in Jesus.

In the age to come there is resurrection and reward for the righteous, and judgment and punishment for the wicked

Those who believe, follow, and obey Jesus are hopeful and ready for the final judgment and coming of God. Knowing that God rewards the righteous and will bring justice for those oppressed by the wicked, members of the Kingdom of God live in hopeful expectation of the return of Jesus, the resurrection of the righteous, and the coming of the fullness of God’s Kingdom. Empowered by the very spirit of God, the people of God live both for the Kingdom of God today and for the future fullness of the Kingdom, which is the redemption and restoration of all God’s world.

I don’t know if you all have been keeping up with the situation in Kenya. I’ve only read a couple articles and heard some reports on NPR. But anyways, yesterday during my drive home from work I was listening to NPR and heard something so powerful it made me stop my car and write it down.

In the midst of the turmoil in Kenya, Desmond Tutu came to the country and yesterday spoke with all of the various parties who are in conflict with one another. In a press conference after his meetings, Archbishop Tutu was asked if he had any hope that the situation would improve. After what was almost a chuckle, Tutu responded with the following:

“I am always a prisoner of hope.”

Tutu went on to explain that with all he has experienced in South Africa, he cannot help but be imprisoned by a sense of hope.

I found this sentiment quite powerful. I want to be imprisoned by a sense of hope for my life, my relationships, my communities, and my world. Too often this has not been my outlook. Perhaps in this new year my perspective can continue to change.

In Music – check out Radiohead’s “Scotch mist: a film with Radiohead in it,” made for New Year’s Eve 2007. (HT: Bob)
In Books – the online magazine Slate has a review of Joel Osteen’s latest book. It’s interesting to read this response from a non-Christian media outlet. Here’s the tagline: “Joel Osteen’s God really wants you to dress well, stand up straight, and get a convenient parking space.” (HT: I forget…shame on me)

In Movies – I can’t wait to see “What Would Jesus Buy?” It’s my most anticipated movie of 2008. Of course I’ll probably have to wait to see it on DVD since the chance of it coming to Waco is pretty slim – ok, actually there’s no chance at all.

I read a number of books this year (complete list) but a few of them stood out above the rest. Some of these books were newly published in 2007 and some I just happened to discover in 2007. It was really hard to narrow down the list. The best I could do was to narrow it down to six books. I heartily recommend each of these books.

When I picked up this book I would never have guessed it would end up as one of my favorites for the entire year. In fact, I didn’t initially buy the book – which is a rarity for me. Instead, I checked it out of the library. This book, along with one of my favorites from last year (Emerging Churches) helped to give me great hope for the Church (see here). Focusing on mainline Christian churches, the research in this book reveals a vibrant and world-transforming mainline church that I was completely unaware of. As a result, my vision was broadened and my spirits lifted – what more can you ask for from a book? (by the way, I did end up buying it)Everything Must Change – Brian McLaren

I would have read a new book by McLaren even if it was titled, “Everything Must Stay the Same.” McLaren is certainly one of my favorite authors (he featured prominently in my list from last year). This book builds on one of my favorites from last year, The Secret Message of Jesus, but really challenges the church to take the message of Jesus and live it in reality. His two questions – 1. What are the biggest problems in the world? 2. What does Jesus have to say about these global problems? – have stuck with me in a powerful way since reading the book. I hope to continue to ruminate on these questions and more importantly, to act on what I see as the implications of these questions.The Happiest Baby on the Block – Harvey Karp

One of these books doesn’t look like the others, eh? Well, while some of these other books might have been my favorites, this book might have been the most important. We had a baby girl this year and I don’t know what I would have done without this book – it really gave me confidence from the very beginning. If you are about to have your first child, I highly recommend reading this book. Especially if you don’t have a lot of experience with babies (I sure didn’t).

My favorite memoir of the year and a beautifully written book. I can’t quite put my finger on why this was one of my favorite books of the year. I can only say that, along with reading Christianity for the Rest of Us, this book helped me to gain a new appreciation for mainline churches and helped me to identify with mainline churches in a new and positive way. But that only touches the surface. This book is excellent.Soul Graffiti – Mark Scandrette

Last but certainly not least, Soul Graffiti is the book from this year that I hope will work the most transformation in my life. I am currently rereading it and hope to soak in Scandrette’s call to follow Jesus in practical and transforming ways. I blogged some about the affect this book had on me – I hope it continues to work in me for some time. In particular, I hope it continues to spur me on to action.

I haven’t had a chance to listen to this interview yet, but it seemed that a number of you were interested in this book. Perhaps the interview will provide a little more insight into the book and the author.
NT Wright and Emerging Church Lectures

I’ve posted some excellent lectures at the Emergent Waco blog. The NT Wright lecture about the Bible and politics is a must-listen (I still haven’t listen to the “Paul and Empire” lectures).

I came across this somehow the other day and found the premise very interesting. Basically, this guy has traveled around the entire US in 80 days, relying on strangers for transportation, food, and shelter. The experiment began by posting a video clip on the internet. From there it spread and he has made it around the entire US. He has kept a video diary the whole time.Couch Surfing

Awhile back I read a particularly interesting article from Books & Culture called “Getting a Life.” The article discusses the topic of “emerging adulthood” by addressing six books written on the topic within the past few years. In case you’re like I was and have never heard of “emerging adulthood,” basically it encompasses the time of life between ages 18 and 30. Researchers who are studying this life stage are noticing a distinct change in the experience of 18-30 year olds in today’s world. I am interested in these findings both because I am in this stage of life, and because of the implications for the church.

The article’s author, Christian Smith, lists four “social forces that have given rise to this emerging adulthood.”

1. The growth of higher education and the increase in graduate school education. Smith writes:

“…a huge proportion of American youth are no longer stopping school and beginning stable careers at age 18 but are extending their formal schooling well into their twenties…and [others] are continuing…until their thirties.”

2. The delay of marriage.

3. The global economy and end of lifelong careers, resulting in more job insecurity and more frequent changing of jobs. In addition, Smith writes:

“…many youth today spend five to ten years experimenting with different job and career options before finally deciding on a long-term career direction.”

4. Parents are supporting their children longer – into their twenties and even thirties.

Like I said, this is all very interesting to me because I am in this stage of life. But also, I am intrigued because of the possible implications for the church. Smith quotes Jeffrey Arnett who researched the religious beliefs of emerging adults. In short, Arnett found little or no relationship between emerging adults’ religious beliefs and their previous religious training and background. This is startling.

Some people will argue that 18-30 year olds have been leaving church for decades – only to return when they have a family. However, Smith points out that this may look very different in today’s world because of the changing social norms regarding marriage and family. He writes:

“ When the space between high school graduation and full adulthood was fairly short, as it was 50 years ago, the length of time spent out of the church tended to be rather short. But with the rise of emerging adulthood in recent decades, churches are now looking at 15-year or even 20-year absences by youth from churches between their leaving as teenagers and returning with toddlers-if indeed they ever return.”

Well, that’s enough for now. More of my thoughts on all this will come later. But as you can probably guess, I’m not very hopeful that many of these emerging adults who leave the church will ever return – at least to a typical institutional church environment.

Have you heard of the new movie coming out called What Would Jesus Buy? I’m really looking forward to seeing it. It’s a documentary by Morgan Spurlock, the man behind Super Size Me (which I really liked – more than anything because it was hilarious).

What Would Jesus Buy? deals with American consumerism and in it Spurlock introduces America to Reverend Billy and his “Church of Stop Shopping.” Rev. Billy and his “church” are basically a performance art and activist group dedicated to “defend[ing] communities against supermalls and the Devil’s monoculture” (to put it in words from their own website). Now don’t be fooled, Rev. Billy is no Southern Baptist minister. In fact, he calls himself “post religious” (which of course I find very interesting). However, while there is certainly a lot of humor and spectacle mixed in with Rev. Billy and his “church,” the message comes across very clear – consumerism and Christianity shouldn’t mix.

I’m sure there is much controversy surrounding Rev. Billy. I imagine many Christians are not one bit happy that he has chosen to spread his message in a (faux)Christian manner. However, some Christians are embracing him and his message. In a recent Sojourners column, renowned Biblical scholar Walter Brueggemann calls Rev. Billy a modern day prophet engaging in “guerilla theater,” much like Jesus and the prophets of the Old Testament. Brueggemann writes:

Amos Wilder, the wise New Testament scholar of the last generation, observed that the parables of Jesus are a form of “guerilla theater,” action against settled conviction and an invitation to listeners to come “on stage” into the action. Before Jesus, this same guerilla theater was the enterprise of the ancient prophets. That theater continues with Rev. Billy. We are surely apt candidates for the Church of Stop Shopping. With enough new recruits for the action, perhaps we need not be subjected to the Shopocalypse.

I find this all very compelling. What do you all think? Can we/should we consider Rev. Billy a modern day prophet? What do you think of this idea of guerilla theater? Can you think of any other examples? I’m really interested in your thoughts. But before you respond, you might want to learn more about Rev. Billy, What Would Jesus Buy, and the Church of Stop Shopping. Here are some good resources:

He comes to the conclusion that if Jesus lived in Waco, he would probably go to church at Church Under the Bridge. Olson writes:

“…I [am] convinced [Church Under the Bridge] is where Jesus would go to church in Waco. It’s open, inviting, diverse, without pretense and full of people who know they are society’s outsiders.”

But Olson goes on to say that he doesn’t necessary believe “we should automatically do whatever we think Jesus would do.” He would rather “try to take something of Church Under the Bridge [back to his] home church.”

What do you guys think? Where would Jesus go to church? Would he go to church at all? Should our churches be places where Jesus would actually want to go?

– This blog entry is for those who have ever struggled with faith. Real Live Preacher is the best blogger out there – that’s right, the very best. And this is a must-read example of why he is the best. (there’s a reason I put this one first – it’s great)

– Part 2 of an excellent video interview with Brian McLaren (see Part 1)

– And last but not least, a thought-provoking quote from Thomas Merton:
“The dread of being open to the ideas of others generally comes from our hidden insecurity about our own convictions. We fear that we may be ‘converted’ – or perverted – by a pernicious doctrine. On the other hand, if we are mature and objective in our open-mindedness, we might find that viewing things from a basically different perspective – that of our adversary – we discover our own truth in a new light and are able to understand our own ideal more realistically…” (thanks to Prodigal Kiwi(s) Blog for this quote)

Thanks for the good discussion on all of this. Read the comments from the previous post, if you haven’t already.

Here’s the next big finding (in my opinion) from the book.

But first, a question that seemed to arise in the comments from the previous post:

Is the perception of Christians/Christianity as antihomosexual, judgmental, hypocritical, too involved in politics, out of touch with reality, old fashioned, insensitive to others, and boring mainly due to a misperception by non-Christian outsiders?

I think…maybe not…

The next big finding is that young Christians also characterize Christians/Christianity as antihomosexual, judgmental, hypocritical, too involved in politics, out of touch with reality, old fashioned, insensitive to others, and boring.

Read that again.

This isn’t just a matter of young non-Christians perceiving Christians/Christianity in a negative light. Many young Christians characterize Christians/Christianity in a similar way. Of course the numbers are not as overwhelming, but there is still a significant proportion of Christians who characterize Christians/Christianity as “unChristian.”

So what do we make of this? Is this really one big misperception? What do you all think?

(by the way, I’m not saying that misperception has nothing to do with any of this. And I’m certainly not saying that Christians and non-Christians don’t need to get together and get to know each other. I just find it very interesting that many young Christians see Christians/Christianity in the same negative light as non-Christian outsiders. I’m interested in what you all think about this.)

My first post provided a summary of some of the images outsiders (non-Christians) have when they think of Christians/Christianity. I think the statistics in the chart are certainly disturbing. However, I don’t think anything in the book was quite as disturbing as the following findings:

“We discovered that outsiders express the most opposition toward evangelicals. Among those aware of the term ‘evangelical,’ the views are extraordinarily negative (49 percent to 3 percent). Disdain for evangelicals among the younger set is overwhelming and definitive. Think of it this way: there are roughly twenty-four million outsiders in America who are ages sixteen to twenty-nine. Of these, nearly seven million have a negative impression of evangelicals; another seven million said they have no opinion; and ten million have never heard the term ‘evangelical.’ That leaves less than a half million young outsiders – out of the twenty-four million – who see evangelicals in a positive light” (p. 25).

Go back and read the bold part again.

I think Kinnaman is right: “Disdain for evangelicals among the younger set is overwhelming and definitive.”

Ok, so maybe you’re saying, “I don’t identify myself as an ‘evangelical’ so this doesn’t matter to me.” I think you’re wrong. I think it is becoming increasingly true that outsiders identify Christianity with ‘evangelical.’ To many outsiders, there is no distinction. Whether we like it or not, that’s the way it is.

Last week I had the pleasure of spending time with Mark Scandrette (I also read his book Soul Graffiti, which I highly recommend). Reading his book and spending about 5-6 hours with Mark impacted me significantly. Mark is someone who is really living the gospel, and living it with others (in spending time with him, I couldn’t help but be reminded of George MacDonald – another one who truly lived the gospel). In short, I am feeling a strong call to start living the gospel in a way I have only thought about before.

Here is a quote from Mark’s book that expresses some of what I am feeling.

“Paul of Tarsus noted that ‘the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power’ (1 Corinthians 4:20). I think of how personally addicted I am to words and ideas that are often fragmented from my sensations, feelings, and relationships. We struggle to live in our bodies what we believe in our minds. How is it that so many of us have energy to debate about words but lack the passion to seek love and reconciliation? Or why do we tend to look for God in the pages of a book more than in the face of a friend? In the West we have more ideas about God than encounters with God, treating the message of the kingdom more as an elegant theory than a present reality. Is the name and power of Jesus something to be understood or a presence and power to encounter? From our fragmentation we struggle for a unity between thought and experience.”

I cannot continue living as I have. It is time for change. It is time for less talk and more reality of living the gospel in our world.

I’ve been reading unChristian, the book I mentioned a couple weeks ago. I’m about half way through and I’m convinced this is a very important book. It’s one I am going to be recommending to everyone. Buy it. And really listen to what it has to say.

Here’s the short story. Basically, the book discusses some research that was conducted by The Barna Group and commissioned by the Fermi Project. The research was focused on better understanding the perceptions young non-Christians (they use the term “outsiders”) have towards Christianity (and Christians). The results are startling on multiple levels. I will definitely be blogging more about this. Until then, here is a basic summary of the perceptions “outsiders” have of Christianity.

– I just found out about this interesting book coming out – it’s called unChristian. Check out the website. Basically, the book is based on a study that looked at perceptions of Christianity and Christians. Here are some of the words/phrases that were often mentioned: antihomosexual, judgmental, hypocritical, sheltered, too political. I ordered the book and I’m looking forward to reading it and maybe discussing it some here.

– This is old news but still very interesting. Have you guys read about Mother Teresa’s recently released journals? Read “Mother Teresa’s Crisis of Faith” from Time magazine. It’s well worth the read.

– Geoff posted about his ACL experience (here). I’m so very jealous that he saw Arcade Fire. There is no band I would rather see live right now. I have been listening to their latest, Neon Bible, over and over in my car. I can’t stop. I think it might be even better than Funeral.

– Keep up the conversations about hell (here and here). It’s been good.

– 11 people got together and started an Emergent cohort in Waco this week. I’m excited and hopeful for what is to come.

I am part of a group of people who are beginning an Emergent cohort in Waco. My goal in helping to start this group is to promote conversation about issues surrounding and related to the emerging church.

We are meeting at 11:45 this upcoming Wednesday, at Chilis Too at Baylor. Anyone and everyone is welcome.

If you’re interested in the Emergent Waco cohort, let me know – email me at adam_d_moore(at)baylor(dot)edu. That way I can add you to the email list for information about meetings, etc. Also, let me know if you are planning to come on Wednesday – that way I can save a big enough table.

But this post will definitely be about beginning at the end. Or at least beginning at the present.

When I say I’m screwed up, I primarily mean that I am uncertain about many things regarding God, faith, church, etc. Inherent in this statement is the idea that I used to have things figured out. Or at least I thought I did. In fact, there have been at least a few different times I thought I had things figured out, only to find that I didn’t. Maybe I should take the hint and just stop trying to figure things out… Anyways, all of this is what has me screwed up.

In beginning at the end, I’m going to discuss what I have been pondering lately – I’ve been thinking about friends and family who have left Christianity. I think for the most part they all left because it just stopped working (in some ways that has been my experience as well). In the past I just attributed this kind of “falling away” to sin of some kind.

For example: “So and so left church because he is pursuing things apart from God – money, career, ambition (to name a few).”

Or: “So and so left Christianity because she is not willing to give up her pride and just submit to God.”

I think these explanations can certainly be true. However, more and more I am thinking that people (I am thinking of specific friends and family) leave church and/or Christianity because they find that it no longer works for them. At one point going to church and believing things about Christianity genuinely helped them in some way. But for whatever reason, now it doesn’t. Some of them try and try and try to make it work. But eventually they give up and leave.

What are we to make of this?

I don’t feel comfortable writing these people off so easily. I don’t believe I can simply attribute their rejection of church/Christianity to sin. These are genuinely good and kind people. People with good intentions. People who really wanted/want it to work. But for whatever reason, it didn’t. Some of these people go on to good productive lives – caring for others, loving their neighbors and working to bring about justice. Others make a more thorough defection. Their lives may even fall apart in many ways. In either case, I struggle with why it didn’t work. At one point these people really tried to make it work – following Jesus and being part of church/Christianity. Can we really blame them for leaving because it wasn’t working? Maybe this sounds very selfish to you – and maybe it is. But can we really tell people to keep doing something that is not working – not bringing about any good, any redemption in the person’s life? These individuals may even feel they are being harmed by the continued attempts and failures to make it all work. Some leave feeling there was no other option. And on top of all this, after leaving some of them feel that leaving is the very thing that saved them.

Ok, I’ve said a lot. Does this make sense? Please don’t get me wrong. I am not throwing out sin or personal responsibility here. At least I’m not meaning to. What I’m really struggling with are people who genuinely try/seek/want to make it work but end up leaving church/Christianity.

So that’s what I am screwed up about right now.

Any thoughts? I’m really interested in what you think. Has anyone else thought about this? Or perhaps experienced this at all? What do we do with this kind of thing?

First of all, what happened? 18 comments on the previous post? Wow. Thanks for the good discussion – obviously it had nothing to do with me. I have been so busy with things (translation: why won’t Ivy eat?!) that I didn’t even get to join in. I hope to post a follow-up in the next week or so with some of my own thoughts (not that you need to hear my thoughts. Your thoughts were all perfectly great. But anyways, since it is my blog and all…I’ll probably post my thoughts).

Ok, so do you remember the “Responding to Buechner” post? Well, it kind of died off and I posted about something else and it seemed like that discussion was over. But I think the discussion just started – thanks to Angela (and I think it actually relates to the “Circumcision” post as well). If you haven’t read the post, go read it real quick and make sure to read the comments. Here is Angela’s comment (posted with permission):

“I wasn’t going to respond to this, because I was afraid of the reaction I would get. But I’ve changed my mind. Bare in mind, I’m asking questions more than answering them. As you know by now, I’m agnostic, so my views on faith are very… skeptical… for lack of a better word.

“If I am to believe that faith is nothing more than a “real” dream, what separates reality from fiction. It seems to me that the only separation (in Buechner’s quote) is what I want that separation to be. If I want my faith to be a reality and not just a dream, then I only need to believe it, and it is so? I don’t buy it. Sorry. If one has doubts, and the doubt unsettles you so, then retreating back into the dream to avoid these doubts solves nothing in the end.

“It’s a beautiful idea when applied in a loving manner, but it becomes a dangerous idea when in the hands of extremists. Their faith is so strong and so “real” to them, as well.”

This is such an insightful comment – I hope it leads to some good discussion. I think Angela’s response is very fair. I know some Christians would attempt to quickly refute it and “prove” that faith is completely reasonable – I think that is just plain arrogant.

Any thoughts on this? What do you think? I think Angela brings up some great points.

By the way, I’m not interested in a debate or an argument. I want to look and see the value in what Angela is saying – because I think there is a lot to be gained from it.

I read through Paul’s letter to the Galatians today and something caught my attention in a new way. One of the implied questions addressed in Galatians (and also in Acts) is the issue of whether or not a person must first become a Jew in order to follow Jesus. This was an important question in the earliest church. Jesus was a Jew. His earliest followers were Jews. Did this mean a person must become a Jew to follow Jesus? Paul addresses the question by looking at circumcision. Must a new non-Jewish believer be circumcised (become a Jew) in order to be welcomed by the early Jesus followers? Paul’s answer is a resounding ‘no.’

Paul seems to be saying that following Jesus, and living by the Spirit, is not about becoming a Jew – it is not about a particular religion but is for anyone and everyone (Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, etc). Following Jesus is not about adopting a new religion. One could remain a Gentile (non-Jew) and follow Jesus (interesting to note – one could also remain a Jew, since there was no such thing as converting to the Christian religion).

Ok, so maybe you’re thinking that there’s nothing too terribly interesting here. However, reading all of this made me think about how these concepts might apply today (maybe you already see where I am going). I am wondering if we can replace Paul’s categories of “circumcised” (Jew) and “uncircumcised” (non-Jew/Gentile) with “Christian” and “non-Christian.” Must a person in today’s world become a Christian in order to follow Jesus and live by the Spirit? I know I have blogged about this kind of thing before but I was just particularly intrigued by how Paul’s words in Galatians might relate to this whole issue. What do you think? I am really interested in hearing your thoughts.

One other thing. Paul does not reject the Jewish followers of Jesus. He acknowledges that Peter is an apostle to the Jews. Paul simply wants the other early Jesus-followers (particularly the leaders of the early movement) to acknowledge his calling to the non-Jews/Gentiles as valid. He also does not seem to reduce the value of the church in Jerusalem (a primarily Jewish church). Instead he seems to recognize that both can coexist. Peter should continue to heed his call to the Jews and Paul will continue to proclaim the message of Jesus to the Gentiles. There is room for both. Some might be called to the Jews and others to the Gentiles. Paul’s desire is simply that the religion of the Jews should not be pushed onto the Gentiles – as a precondition for following Jesus.

So what do you think? Can this relate to the whole Christian/non-Christian thing I mentioned above? Is there a place for followers of Jesus who are not Christians? Just as Paul said that becoming a Jew was unnecessary for Gentiles, might he say today that becoming a Christian is not necessary for following Jesus?

Anyway, I know I already blogged about this kind of thing before (similar ideas can be found both here and here) but I thought perhaps it was worth another mention after reading Galatians today.